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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose default sort order and the shape of returned records, which is useful. It stops short of stating read-only semantics, that limits are capped, or how results paginate past the default 25.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ordering, with no filler. The dangling 'same filters' clause is the only weak spot, but the text is otherwise tight.

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 no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming returned fields, and the fully documented schema covers inputs. However, the unresolved 'same filters' reference and the absence of any read-only/safety framing leave an agent with open questions for an 8-parameter tool.

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 all 8 parameters are already documented with examples and defaults in the schema, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond the vague 'same filters' phrase.

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 and resource ('List the most recent login checks') and adds ordering (newest first) plus the fields returned (risk score, status, location, device). It implies a raw-listing tool, distinguishable from aggregate siblings like get_login_stats and get_login_breakdown, though it never names them.

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?

'Supports the same filters' refers to filters the agent cannot see defined anywhere in this definition or schema, forcing inference. There is no statement of when to use this listing versus get_login_breakdown, get_login_stats, or get_average_risk_score.

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