Get Audit Log (Action1)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows the tool is safe. The description adds context about scope (enterprise vs. org), but does not disclose pagination behavior or full operational constraints. It provides some additional value beyond annotations.

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?

Extremely concise with no wasted words, but the structure is a sentence fragment rather than a complete sentence. It is front-loaded and communicates the core purpose efficiently.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, readable parameter descriptions in the schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is adequate but not exhaustive. It misses mentioning pagination or return format, though the schema covers some of that. The overall context is sufficient for a read-only audit log 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?

Schema coverage is 80%, so most parameters are documented. The description adds meaning by clarifying that orgId scopes logging to an organization, which is not fully evident from the schema alone. This improves parameter understanding beyond the baseline.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves enterprise-wide or org-scoped audit logs. The verb 'get' and resource 'audit log' are explicit, and the scope distinction provides differentiation from sibling tools which deal with endpoints, software, reports, etc.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description mentions org-scoped logging with orgId but does not provide explicit usage context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from parameter descriptions.

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