get_audit_log

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds useful behavioral details: ordering (most recent first), exact fields returned, and the clamping range (1..500). These specifics help the agent predict output and limits without contradicting the annotation.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds essential details about fields and constraints. Every sentence contributes value.

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 (one optional parameter, output schema present, readOnly annotation), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, ordering, return fields, and the limit behavior. There are no obvious gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 only defines 'limit' as an integer with a default, but the description adds crucial semantic meaning by stating it is clamped to 1..500. This compensates for the lack of schema-level descriptions and clarifies acceptable 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 tool retrieves audit-log entries with a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('account audit-log entries'), and ordering ('most recent first'). It also enumerates the returned fields, making it distinct from sibling tools that handle calendars, sync rules, or scheduling.

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 implies the tool is for viewing recent account audit activity, which is a distinct context among the sibling tools. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but there are no overlapping alternatives for audit logs, so the context is clear enough without exclusions.

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