list_internet_connections_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It includes a warning about never fabricating data and to report errors, which adds behavioral transparency. However, it doesn't disclose what the tool does if no logs exist, whether it respects permissions, or how it handles large date ranges.

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 short and to the point, with a front-loaded purpose. The only extra sentence is a warning which adds value. No wasted 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?

Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description does not fully cover what the response looks like (e.g., array of logs, metadata). It also omits the default page size and whether pagination is required. Adequate but incomplete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds the context of date filters but no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 lists change history logs across all internet connections with date filters. The verb 'list' and resource 'internet connections log' are specific, though it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_tickets_log.

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 mentions date filters, implying when to use. However, there is no guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context like required permissions or pagination behavior.

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