list-organization-auditlogs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the endpoint returns audit log items and can be filtered; it does not disclose pagination behavior, date-range handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any response structure. This is a read operation, but the description adds little beyond the basic purpose.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It states the primary purpose first and then adds the filter capability without wasting 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal but mostly adequate for a list endpoint with rich schema coverage. It does not mention pagination, sorting, or the auditLogType and date-time filters, though those are documented in the schema. The description could be more complete about return shape and pagination behavior, but the schema covers parameter semantics well.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by semantically linking productId, configId, and environmentId as optional filters that can be combined ('and/or'), which is not fully explicit in the individual parameter descriptions. This helps an agent understand how to use those parameters together.

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 a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('Audit log items for a given Organization'), and it specifies optional filters by Product, Config, and Environment. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'list-auditlogs', so the differentiation is only implicit through the organization scope.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list-auditlogs'. It describes what the endpoint returns but does not state when an agent should choose this tool over other list/audit-related tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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