Get Group Administration Audit Log

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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds a real behavioral constraint beyond them: 'Requires admin privileges,' which is an auth prerequisite an agent needs before calling. It doesn't add rate limits or log retention/window details.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then usage cue, then prerequisite. No filler, though the parenthetical content list and the usage sentence could be merged without loss.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Purpose, usage cue, resource scope, and the admin-privilege requirement together cover what an agent needs; only explicit differentiation from related tools is absent.

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 100%, so both params (account, chat_id) are fully documented in the schema, including ID formats and multi-account fan-out semantics. The description adds only the resource scoping ('supergroup or channel') and no syntax beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Retrieve the administrative audit log') and enumerates contents (member bans, edits, admin changes) scoped to supergroups/channels. It separates reasonably well from siblings like get_admins or get_banned_users, though it never names them explicitly.

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 one usage cue ('Use when reviewing moderation actions') but no when-not conditions and no mention of alternative sibling tools (get_admins, get_banned_users) that could also serve moderation review. Usage is implied rather than delimited.

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