Get integration logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety and side-effect expectations. The description only adds 'Body fields: none' and an endpoint URL, but does not disclose what the logs contain, whether pagination is automatic, or any rate limits or permissions. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still adds little beyond them.

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 short and front-loads the purpose, with no filler. It includes the endpoint and a reference link, which is useful. However, it repeats the title ('Get integration logs') and could be more efficient by integrating the endpoint into a single sentence.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the logs contain or what the response looks like, but it does not. It also omits details about how to use query parameters for pagination or filtering. For a read-only logging tool, an agent would still need to consult the linked documentation to call it 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 integrationId is described implicitly via the endpoint URL, but the query parameter is undocumented in the description; the schema already notes that pagination uses offset and limit. With 50% schema coverage, the description does not compensate for the undocumented query behavior, leaving the agent without instructions on how to filter or page results.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get integration logs') and the endpoint URL clarifies it returns logs for a specific integration. Among the many sibling tools, none other targets integration logs, so it is clearly distinguished without needing to name an alternative.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_an_integration for integration metadata, or event logs). It only gives the endpoint and a reference link, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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