Search Message Processing Logs (MPL)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses ordering ('Most recent first') and indirectly pagination via the 'top' parameter, but it omits behavioral traits like result limits, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The disclosure is partial.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second lists filters and ordering. No fluff, front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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?

With 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers major filters but lacks details on return value structure, exclusive/inclusive time boundaries, and error handling. It's complete enough for basic use but not for complex scenarios.

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 only 40% (toTime, fromTime described). The description adds meaning by listing the status enum values and naming the integration flow parameter, but does not explain the 'top' parameter beyond what the schema provides (default, min, max). It compensates somewhat for low coverage but is not exhaustive.

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 'Search SAP CPI Message Processing Logs' and lists specific filters (status, integration flow name, time window), which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_mpl_details' by focusing on filtering and search.

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 implies usage context by listing filterable fields and ordering ('Most recent first'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative MPL tools like get_mpl_details or get_mpl_error_information. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusions.

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