search_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'Returns paginated results' and contrasts performance with alternatives ('never fetch raw log content'), providing useful behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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 long but well-structured with clear sections. Each bullet names a distinct sibling tool, earning its place. The 'IMPORTANT' block is slightly redundant with the bullets, keeping it from a perfect score.

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's complexity (7 params, pagination, many siblings), the description covers what it does, when to use it, and when not to, with specific alternatives. The output schema exists for return values, so nothing critical is missing.

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 the description does not need to add much parameter-level detail. It provides general scope (search vs count) but does not go deeper than the schema already does, so baseline 3 applies.

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 starts with 'Search and VIEW log entries,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It also explicitly distinguishes from siblings by contrasting with count_logs, count_unique_values, and aggregate_logs_by_field, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description includes explicit 'Use this when' and 'DO NOT use for' sections, naming specific alternative tools for each exclusion. This fully satisfies the when-to-use/alternatives requirement.

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