search_onprem_device_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it adds real value by naming the log source and clarifying that 'action is permitted or denied', which the schema does not. However it says nothing about pagination, result volume, time-window behavior, or any safety/access profile.

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?

Two tight sentences with the resource and event scope front-loaded and no filler. Structure is efficient, though given the parameter gaps the terseness costs more than it saves.

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 an 8-parameter tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage, the description leaves most filter semantics and their defaults unexplained. The output schema covers return values, but the agent still lacks enough to invoke the filters correctly beyond 'action'.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate, yet it only disambiguates the 'action' parameter ('permitted or denied'). Filters like min_severity, since_minutes, acl_name, src_ip/dst_ip, and defaults (limit=50, since_minutes=1440) are left entirely undocumented.

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 Cisco IOS syslog from on-premises routers and switches') and enumerates the event types covered (ACL permit/deny hits, interface state changes). This clearly distinguishes it from firewall-session tools, though it never names a sibling to contrast against.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing tells the agent to prefer this over search_firewall_sessions, search_flows, or top_denied_traffic, and no prerequisites are stated. Only the described data source implicitly hints at scope.

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