duo_get_authentication_log

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It does so by explaining pagination mechanics (pass back the comma-joined pair from metadata.next_offset) and by clarifying the log contains every MFA authentication event. This adds useful behavioral context beyond what the schema provides, though it does not mention rate limits or auth requirements.

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 sentences with no filler: purpose first, then parameter unit clarification, then pagination instructions. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information 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 5-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, time filtering, and pagination. A brief note on the shape of the returned log entry would improve it, but an agent can invoke and paginate correctly with the information given.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by reiterating Unix epoch milliseconds for mintime/maxtime and, more importantly, specifying next_offset's exact format (comma-joined pair from metadata.next_offset), which is richer than the schema's generic 'Pagination cursor from a previous response'.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the authentication log (v2) - every MFA authentication event'. This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling log tools like duo_get_administrator_log and duo_get_telephony_log.

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 use: it retrieves MFA authentication events in a time range. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the phrase 'authentication log' and 'MFA authentication event' makes its scope obvious relative to the sibling admin/telephony logs.

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