Read the audit log

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

The description reinforces the read-only nature with the verb 'Read' and does not contradict the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide, such as side effects, rate limits, or authentication details. The mention of the plan is more of a licensing condition than 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, focused sentence with no superfluous words. It is well-structured, immediately conveys the core function, and includes the key detail about the data recorded (who, when, where) in a compact manner.

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 description explains what the audit log contains but does not mention the format of the returned data (e.g., an array of entries, fields returned). While the lack of an output schema reduces the expectation, the description would be more complete if it indicated that the tool returns a list of log entries. Given the simple parameters, this is a minor gap.

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 schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (days, limit, category), covering 100% of parameter semantics. The description text itself adds nothing beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 reads the audit log, specifying the content (who, when, from where) and the plan requirement. It is unambiguous and distinguishes this tool from others like list_webhooks or list_conversations.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only notes the Enterprise plan restriction, which is a prerequisite, not a usage scenario. No mention of typical use cases or comparison to other read-only tools.

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