get_log_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It enumerates the response categories, including type-specific fields, limit_info semantics, evaluation scores, metadata, and tool calls, and even explains nested limit_info fields with their meanings.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence summary and then uses bullet points for additional detail. Every section earns its place, and the limit_info breakdown is well structured rather than ambiguous prose.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description thoroughly compensates by explaining the available return data, including type-specific fields, limit checks, evaluation scores, and tool calls. It also provides the necessary sequencing with list_logs, making it complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 already documents log_id as the 'Unique identifier of the log (unique_id field from list_logs)', giving 100% coverage. The description reinforces the list_logs relationship but does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve complete details of a single log via GET /api/request-logs/{id}/.' It clearly distinguishes this from list_logs and other sibling tools by focusing on a single log's full detail rather than listing or aggregation.

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?

It explicitly gives usage context: 'Use list_logs first to find the unique_id, then use this endpoint for full details.' This identifies the prerequisite tool and the intended workflow, making it easy for an agent to know when to select this tool.

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