arm_audit_download_logs

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses a 90-day max range and that it returns a download URL and metadata. However, the phrasing creates ambiguity: 'Downloads... ZIP file' versus 'Returns the constructed download URL' could mislead about the actual operation. It does not clarify async behavior or required authentication.

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-loaded with the endpoint and then the operation. Every sentence contributes: it states the verb, resource, format, date range limit, and response contents. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain return values more thoroughly. It states 'Returns the constructed download URL and request metadata' but leaves metadata structure vague and does not clarify the practical flow (e.g., whether the tool triggers a download or just creates a URL). The tool has only 2 params, but the behavioral ambiguity warrants more context.

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%, with both parameters already described including format and range constraints. The description's 'max 90 days' repeats what the schema's endTime description already states, adding no new meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's function: 'Downloads SIEM audit logs as a ZIP file for a date range (max 90 days).' It also specifies the HTTP endpoint. The ZIP format distinguishes it from the sibling arm_audit_get_logs, providing a clear purpose.

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 usage when a ZIP download of audit logs is needed within a date range, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like arm_audit_get_logs, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions.

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