entra_list_directory_audits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the returned events are change records, the actor is included, 'Timestamps are UTC', and filtering is expected rather than optional. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps an agent reason about results and query construction.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: purpose first, then scope, then a compact but valuable set of filter examples, then a timezone note. No sentence is wasted; all content helps an agent call the tool correctly.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains what the output concerns (audit events about changes and their initiators) and provides enough filter guidance for effective use. It does not describe response shape or pagination, but top and orderby are already documented in the schema, and the overall context is sufficient for a read-only list operation.

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% and the schema already describes top, filter, and orderby. The description adds meaningful extra semantics for filter with four concrete OData expressions, and clarifies that timestamps are UTC, which is essential for filtering on activityDateTime. This adds value beyond the schema rather than repeating it.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List Entra ID directory audit events'. It enumerates the covered entity types (users, groups, roles, applications, service principals, credentials, policies) and adds that the events include the actor ('with who made them'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sign-in sibling (entra_list_sign_ins) and the Defender tools.

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 gives strong in-tool usage guidance with 'Always filter' and concrete OData filter examples covering activity name, user, timestamp range, and target resource. It does not explicitly compare this tool against entra_list_sign_ins or state when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough for correct invocation.

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