List Logs

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

With readOnlyHint annotation already declaring safety, the description adds return field details and pagination instructions (limit, after/before), which are behavioral traits not in the annotation. This provides meaningful context beyond the structured metadata.

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?

Structured with bold headers and bullets, it conveys purpose, return fields, and usage in a compact, scannable format with no redundancy.

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 covers purpose, return fields, pagination, and use cases, which is sufficient for a read-only list tool with a fully documented schema. It lacks error handling details, but those are not essential for such a straightforward operation.

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 schema covers all three parameters at 100%, and the description reinforces their combined use for pagination ('Use pagination (limit, after/before) for large lists'), adding a strategic layer beyond individual field 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 explicitly states 'List API request logs for the account' with a clear verb and resource, and differentiates itself from the singular 'get-log' sibling by describing the list operation. It also specifies use cases like review and audit, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 'When to use' section lists concrete scenarios (reviewing activity, debugging, user phrases) and explicitly covers pagination for large lists. It doesn't name alternative tools like 'get-log', but the usage context is well defined.

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