Query hits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral value beyond that: it discloses that this is the lowest-level surface OP3 exposes and enumerates what a row contains (user agents, byte ranges, serving edge). It does not discuss volume/rate behavior, which is the only gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then its role, then the routing rule. Every sentence carries distinct information with no restatement of the title or schema.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the shape of the returned rows (individual requests, user agents, byte ranges, edge). Combined with the 100%-covered input schema and the safety annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 schema already documents all five parameters including the wildcard url behavior and the default time window. The description's 'unless filtered by url' duplicates the schema rather than extending it, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('raw request rows from OP3's redirect log') and immediately scopes it ('across every show unless filtered by url'). It also positions the tool against the analytics siblings by calling itself a 'verification surface rather than an analytics one', so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this (low-level verification, individual requests) versus when not to ('For questions about a specific show's performance, use the show tools instead'). Both the use case and the alternative are named, leaving nothing to inference.

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