List the durable authorization-filtered event log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: authorization is enforced per event class and filters compose conjunctively with exact matching for actor/resource. It says nothing about retention/durability limits, result ordering, or how cursors behave, which are the remaining behavioral questions for a paged log.

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 purpose then permissions then filter semantics; every clause after the first carries information. The only waste is the duplicated title sentence, which consumes space without adding meaning.

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 9 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and pagination parameters (limit/order/cursor) present, the description leaves an agent unsure about return shape, page traversal, and default ordering. For a tool of this surface area, permission notes alone are not enough.

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 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must carry the semantic load, but it only explains three of them (namespace, actor, resource) and one composition rule. Nothing is said about type, cluster, operationId, limit, order, or cursor — arguably the parameters most likely to be misused on a paged log.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource (list / durable authorization-filtered event log) and the follow-up enumerates the three event scopes (cluster, namespace lifecycle/mutation, global audit), which sharpens what kind of records come back. However, the first sentence is a verbatim restatement of the title, and it never differentiates this from nearby list tools such as operations_list or member_logs_get.

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 gives per-scope permission prerequisites (events:read vs audit:read on specific resource paths), which implicitly tells the agent when a call will succeed. It offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and never points at an alternative tool for a related need.

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