page_audit_scan_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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: the return format (array of log items with specific fields), pagination support, and importantly states 'Does not consume API credits' - a crucial operational detail not evident from the schema alone. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling.

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 efficiently structured with zero waste. The first sentence establishes the core purpose, the second details the return format, the third provides usage context, and the fourth covers operational details. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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 read-only tool with 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description does well by specifying the return format in detail. However, it could be more complete by mentioning potential error cases, response size limitations, or how to interpret specific log types. The absence of annotations means the description should ideally cover more behavioral aspects.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by mentioning pagination support and implying the reportId parameter's purpose ('for debugging scan issues'), but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('Get chronological log of scan events') and resource ('scan events for debugging and progress tracking'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'page_audit_get_last_scans' or 'page_audit_get_results_report' by focusing specifically on log retrieval rather than scan results or metadata.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('for debugging and progress tracking'), but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools. It implies usage for log-related debugging but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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