Query Logs

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate these. It adds context on using Transaction IDs but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond the annotations and schema (e.g., pagination is in schema).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and use cases. No unnecessary words, efficient and clear.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers purpose, use cases, and parameter context well. However, it does not explicitly describe the output format (list of log entries), which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema. Minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the practical source of Transaction IDs (error responses) and reiterating critical query filter syntax (leading slash). This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool queries PingOne AIC logs for investigation and debugging, with specific use cases (journey failures, auth errors, script exceptions, API issues). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools as the only log query tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit use cases for debugging and mentions using Transaction IDs for tracing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., queryESVs for different data).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.