query_external_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses that search patterns are translated and results mapped to OpenTelemetry format, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not explicitly state read-only status, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The verb 'Query' implies a read operation, but this is not explicit.

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 a single sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the main action ('Query external log providers') and concisely mentions the translation and mapping behavior. It is appropriately sized and well-structured.

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?

The tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core purpose and mentions the OpenTelemetry mapping, hinting at output format. However, it lacks details on response structure, pagination, or usage constraints. The 100% schema coverage helps, but the description alone is not fully complete.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all four parameters, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description itself does not add parameter-specific details, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already handles the semantics adequately.

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 uses the verb 'Query' with a specific resource ('external log providers') and enumerates the providers (Datadog, Splunk, Elasticsearch), making its purpose clear. It also mentions translation to OpenTelemetry format, which adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like query_log_pattern, though the 'external' qualifier provides implicit differentiation.

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 implies this tool is for querying external log providers, which is a clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like query_log_pattern or summarize_log_timeline, nor does it provide exclusions. The guidance is implied but not explicitly stated.

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