list_integration_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the lower bar applies; the description still adds real value by disclosing ordering ('newest first') and the message types returned. It says nothing about volume/pagination behavior beyond the schema's limit or about completeness of the log set.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no filler. The table name and ordering note are compact and each clause earns its place.

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?

Five optional parameters, full schema coverage, and annotations covering the safety profile mean the description only needs to add orientation, which it does. Minor gaps: no note on what happens with very large result sets and no hint that there is no output schema, so return shape is unstated.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters; baseline 3 applies. The description only adds marginal meaning, noting that results can be scoped to one run and hinting that 'recommendation' messages exist beyond the schema's type examples.

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 plus the underlying table (sn_vul_integration_log) and the scope ('optionally scoped to a single run'), which separates it from list_integration_runs and get_integration_run. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

'for troubleshooting' gives a clear use context, and the run-scoping note hints at the typical debug workflow. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., list_integration_runs for run summaries), so routing is only implied.

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