list_auth_activity

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already declares the operation is safe. The description adds the behavioral trait that admin privileges are required, and the emphasis on 'all' indicates the scope covers the entire authentication activity log, not a filtered subset. This goes beyond the annotation and is valuable context.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core function and followed by the permission requirement. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple list endpoint with a read-only annotation and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It names the resource, scope, and permission requirement. However, it lacks any mention of pagination or sorting behavior, which are the only parameters, and it does not contrast with 'list_my_auth_activity' explicitly, leaving a small gap in 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 0%, and the description provides no information about the four parameters (page, size, sort, unpaged). While these are standard pagination/sorting parameters, the description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions. The agent receives no guidance on parameter meaning or usage.

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 'List all authentication activity' with a specific verb and resource, and the word 'all' distinguishes it from the sibling 'list_my_auth_activity' which presumably shows only the caller's own activity. The scope is explicit and unambiguous.

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 provides a clear usage constraint: 'Requires ADMIN.' This tells the agent who can use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention the non-admin alternative 'list_my_auth_activity' or any when-not-to-use scenarios. Thus, it gives clear context but no direct exclusions or alternatives.

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