get_virtual_service_error_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful, non-obvious behavior: a 50-line cap, a status>=400 filter, the returned fields, and the ambiguity of empty results. It doesn't mention pagination or whether logs are cached/real-time, but for a read-only tool this is strong.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the read-only marker and the core capability, then the sibling routing and the empty-result caveat. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, yet the description still summarizes the returned fields for fast selection. Combined with the routing rule and empty-result caveat, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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% and the schema already documents the window syntax ('30m', '1h', '2d') and the exact vs_name lookup source. The description adds only the implicit scoping to one Virtual Service, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 (get/logs) and resource (error logs for one Virtual Service), and explicitly bounds the content (status 400 and above, up to 50 lines). It names the sibling it is not (get_virtual_service_analytics), so the agent can distinguish the two without opening schemas.

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 to use this instead of get_virtual_service_analytics for per-request detail, giving a clear selection rule between two similar tools. It also warns how to interpret an empty result (no errors vs capture disabled), which prevents a common misreading.

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