search_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses meaningful traits: query is optional if filters are provided, top_k is clamped to a range, error_code_pattern is a prefix match, and results include relevance scores. It covers parameter behavior but does not mention auth, rate limits, or failure modes, which are not critical for a search tool.

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?

The description is well-structured with a one-sentence summary, an Args list for each parameter, and a Returns line. Each sentence earns its place, and the format is scannable for an agent. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers param semantics, return format, and clamping behavior. It could be more complete by mentioning prerequisites (e.g., logs must be indexed first) and explicitly noting the trade-off between semantic search and structured filters, but it is largely sufficient.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It adds significant meaning: max length for query, allowed severity values, ISO 8601 format for time ranges, prefix matching behavior for error codes, and the default/max/clamping for top_k. This transforms the bare schema into a usable spec.

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 opens with 'Search indexed log events with structured filtering and semantic search,' which clearly states the verb (Search), resource (indexed log events), and differentiates from sibling tools that search other content types (docs, code, specs). The dual-mode aspect (structured filtering and semantic search) adds specificity.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when searching log events. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource ('log events') implicitly distinguishes it from sibling search tools. No when-not guidance is given, but the intended use is unambiguous.

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