list_audit_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains parameter semantics (e.g., 'date-only value covers the whole day', 'failed: If True, only show failed operations') and declares a return shape ('Dictionary with logs list and metadata'). However, it does not mention ordering, timezone handling, pagination beyond the limit, or how filters combine, leaving some behavior ambiguous.

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 well-structured with a one-line summary, a bullet-style Args block, and a Returns line. It covers all parameters without unnecessary verbosity, and every line adds value. The docstring-like format is easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool has 7 optional parameters and an output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains all parameters and gives a high-level return shape. However, it omits some behavioral details such as sorting order and whether filters are ANDed, which would be useful for a listing tool, but the presence of an output schema mitigates the need for a full return specification.

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?

Despite the input schema having no parameter descriptions, the description thoroughly documents all 7 parameters. It provides concrete examples for operation and since, clarifies the date-only behavior of until, and states the meaning of limit and failed. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of description.

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 opens with 'List audit logs with optional filtering', which immediately states the action (list) and resource (audit logs). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_audit_log, which is singular and likely fetches one record. It also adds a list of filters, making the scope explicit.

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 makes it clear this tool is for listing audit logs, with specific options for filtering by task, operation, client, time range, failure status, and limit. It implies usage when you need a filtered log view, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like get_audit_log for single-log retrieval.

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