get_event_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the type of content (account activity) but omits details on date filtering defaults, log_type enumerations, pagination, or return format. The phrase 'etc.' is vague and does not clarify behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No wasted words.

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 read tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides a minimum viable explanation. However, it lacks critical operational details such as acceptable log_type values, date format expectations, and behavior when optional from/to are omitted.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters ('End date filter', 'Start date filter', 'Type of event log to retrieve'), so baseline is 3. The description adds light context by linking log_type to 'account activity,' but does not specify date formats or valid log_type values.

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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('event logs'), and the scope ('account activity'), with concrete examples ('changes, logins'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_event_log_upload_log, which target upload-specific logs.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of available log_type values, date range handling, or relationship to similar event log tools.

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