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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value beyond them with sort order, pagination via cursor, the 50-item default page size, and the precise meaning of a refusal entry. Rate limits or log retention windows are not mentioned, keeping it below a 5.

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 with no filler, front-loaded with what the log contains before the parameter notes. The opening sentence is long and slightly convoluted ('with the access you gave it'), but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the shape of each returned entry and the pagination contract. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and the description covering all four parameters, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is only 50% (cursor and failedOnly are documented in-schema), yet the description defines all four parameters, including the source of clientId and the 50-item default for limit that the schema never states. It stops short of mentioning the schema's 1–100 bound on limit.

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 — the request log of a connected app — and enumerates the per-entry fields (method, path, status, duration, error code), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. The ordering (newest first) and the pointer to listConnectedApps for the required client id further separate it from the many other list tools.

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 tells the agent where the required clientId comes from (listConnectedApps) and explains the three optional parameters' effect, giving clear invocation context. It does not state when to prefer a sibling log tool such as listApiKeyRequests or listConnectorCalls, nor any exclusions.

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