Log Search

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It does communicate the core behavior (LogQL query over logs constrained by a period) and 'search' implies a read-only operation, but it omits any detail about default time range, result limits, error behavior, or the exact source of logs.

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 very short and every word contributes, but it is more terse than appropriately structured. It front-loads the key concepts yet leaves no room for the usage and parameter guidance the open schema requires.

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?

With an open, undocumented params object and no annotations, this description is not sufficient for a reliable invocation; an agent cannot tell what to put inside 'params' or which logs are searched. Although an output schema exists and covers return values, the selection/invocation context remains incomplete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and only an open 'params' object with arbitrary allowed properties. The description hints that a LogQL expression and a period are relevant, but it never maps them to concrete parameter keys or value formats, so the agent still must guess the expected invocation shape.

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 states the action (search), resource (logs), query language (LogQL), and a time scope (period), so it is more than a tautology of the title. It does not, however, say which logs are covered or how it differs from log_tail, service_logs, docker_logs, or k8s_logs, so it lacks sibling 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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many adjacent log tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage context is the generic 'search logs per period' phrase, which leaves an agent to infer its applicability from the name.

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