search_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing beyond inputs: no return shape, ordering, pagination behavior, or cost characteristics (the slow/fast tradeoff of is_query_count lives only in the schema). The SQL-syntax hint is the only added behavior-adjacent context.

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?

Three tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core purpose and prerequisites come first. It could still fold in one more useful clause without bloat, but sizing is appropriate.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers required inputs and query syntax but omits return format, pagination defaults, and the resolve_table_id workflow. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the schema, including the query example and the is_query_count semantics. The description restates the query syntax and required fields without adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Search ClickVisual logs') and names the required inputs. It is clearly more of a query tool than the sibling metadata/list tools, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from alternatives like get_log_charts or list_tables.

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 gives prerequisites ('Requires a numeric table_id and a time range') but no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no pointer to the sibling resolve_table_id for obtaining a table_id. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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