search_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that a job is created, polled, results fetched, and cleanup performed—important side effects of a seemingly simple 'search'. It also informs about differing result shapes based on query type. It could add details about error handling or resource consumption, but the main behaviors are well covered.

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 two sentences long, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and lifecycle/return-type details in the second. Every sentence provides unique value; there is no redundant information 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?

The description adequately covers the tool's complexity: lifecycle handling and result variations. Since an output schema exists, exact return fields are presumably documented elsewhere. It could mention permissions or cost implications, but for a search tool this level of detail is strong and not misleading.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for the query parameter by explaining that aggregation keywords (count, sum, avg, group by) change the return format, which helps users craft queries appropriately. This goes beyond the schema's basic syntax note.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Execute a Sumo Logic log search and return results.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it handles the full search lifecycle (create, poll, fetch, cleanup), clearly separating it from manual management tools like get_search_status, get_search_results, and cancel_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 phrase 'Handles the full search lifecycle' implies this is the primary tool for running searches, versus sibling tools that handle only stages. It also provides guidance on query types by explaining that aggregation queries return aggregated records while raw queries return log messages. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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