get_topic_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the 'logs = messages' clarification and no behavioral detail on pagination, ordering, filtering limits, or what the returned messages include. Adequate but thin given the annotation coverage.

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?

One six-word sentence with zero filler, and the core resource is front-loaded. It is efficient but arguably too sparse — for a 9-parameter tool it trades away substance for brevity, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, this is thin. Nothing explains pagination semantics, the content of returned logs, or how this differs from get_node_logs and get_topic. An agent would be guessing about search, partition, and timestamp behavior.

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 56% (5 of 9 parameters documented), and the description itself names none of the parameters. Four parameters (page, search, perPage, partition) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's partial coverage.

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 ('Get') and resource ('logs (messages) for a topic'). The parenthetical '(messages)' usefully disambiguates from the sibling get_node_logs by clarifying these are topic messages, not node-level logs. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, so it lands just below the top tier.

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. It doesn't mention that get_node_logs covers node-level logs, when to prefer get_topic, or how pagination/filtering parameters factor into usage. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the sibling list.

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