vs_error_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, and the description adds complementary context: the 50-line limit, status >=400 filter, the exact returned fields, and the ambiguity of empty results (no errors vs capture disabled). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place. The READ intent is front-loaded, followed by return details, sibling distinction, and an important caveat about empty results. Zero wasteful wording.

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 fields are further specified there. The description covers the critical operational details: scope, result cap, status filter, alternative tool, and the empty-result ambiguity. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke or interpret the tool is missing.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema; the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the general purpose of the tool. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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, and scope: 'Returns... error logs for one Virtual Service' with explicit detail on line limit, status threshold, and fields. It directly names the alternative vs_analytics, so an agent can distinguish without opening either 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 'Use this instead of vs_analytics for per-request detail', naming the alternative and the condition that selects this tool. It also adds interpretation guidance for empty results, which helps decide whether to escalate or check configuration.

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