reports_activities

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It simply says 'Query the audit log' without stating that the operation is read-only, whether it requires special permissions, or what the response contains. It also omits pagination behavior (noted in the schema) and rate limits. This is insufficient for a tool that may access sensitive audit data.

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 focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action and provides a helpful list of examples. However, the examples replicate the schema's enum, making them somewhat redundant.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is minimal and does not cover prerequisites, response format, or use cases of the returned data. It is far from complete for an audit-log querying tool.

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?

The description adds little beyond the input schema. It repeats the applicationName enum values already present in the schema, but does not explain endTime, eventName, or other parameters. With 50% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining these ambiguous fields; it does not.

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 'Query the audit log for an application' with specific verb and resource. It also provides a list of applicationName examples (login, admin, drive, etc.), which helps clarify scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like reports_usage_user and reports_usage_customer, which are about usage reports, not audit 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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusionary criteria or contrast with sibling tools. The only contextual hint is the applicationName examples, which are parameter details, not usage guidelines.

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