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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe-read profile, so the burden is lower. The description adds only that entries are audit-style records (who/what/which entity/when) and restates the HTTP endpoint; it says nothing about pagination limits, retention, or result volume beyond what the schema implies.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the disambiguating summary. The trailing 'Basis Theory: GET /logs' is near-redundant metadata but costs little.

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?

A read-only list tool with no required params, fully documented schema, and a safety annotation — the description supplies the one thing structured fields don't: what an entry conceptually contains. Nothing critical for correct invocation 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 all six filters (page, size, dates, entity_id, entity_type) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level guidance, which is acceptable at full coverage but earns only 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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (audit-log entries) and immediately disambiguates with 'who did what to which entity and when.', making it clearly distinct from sibling list tools like list_tokens or list_applications.

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?

Gives a concrete selecting scenario ('The tool for answering \'who touched this token?\''), which tells the agent when this tool applies. It does not, however, mention exclusions or point to list_log_entity_types as a companion for discovering valid entity_type values.

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