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 transparency burden. It discloses the 'Most recent first' sorting behavior and filtering options, which adds value. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error handling. The description is reasonable but not rich enough for a higher score.

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 concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the action and resource, the second lists filters and ordering. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a search tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential query dimensions but misses important details: the 'top' parameter controls result count, and the enum includes 'ABANDONED' which is not listed in the description. This is a notable gap that could lead to under-specification.

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 only 40% (toTime and fromTime have descriptions). The description adds meaning by grouping toTime/fromTime as 'time window' and explicitly listing status values, but it omits the 'top' parameter and its result-limit semantics. It partially compensates for the schema coverage gap but not fully.

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's purpose: 'Search SAP CPI Message Processing Logs.' It specifies the verb 'Search' and the resource 'Message Processing Logs,' and lists the key filtering dimensions (status, integration flow name, time window). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_mpl_details, which focus on retrieving specific log details.

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 context on when to use the tool (searching logs with filters) but does not explicitly compare it to alternatives or state when not to use it. It implies usage through the search context, but lacks direct exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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