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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds that logs are chronological and support filtering, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like default ordering, pagination limits, or rate limits. The description does not contradict 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then summarizing filtering capabilities. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the annotations (readOnly, idempotent) and full schema coverage, the description sufficiently defines the tool's functionality. It lacks details about return format or default ordering, but these are not critical for a list tool with good parameter documentation and no output schema.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description only restates filtering by 'action type and resource' (matching action and resourceType parameters). It does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting but not exceeding the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves audit logs for the organization, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by focusing on audit logs, not other entities like contacts or bots.

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 the tool is for retrieving audit logs and supports filtering, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative logging tools (e.g., webhook logs) or provide when-not-to-use scenarios. No sibling tool directly competes, so usage context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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