List authentication logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination (max 25 per page), optional search query, and the fields returned. It also implies read-only behavior via 'List', but does not mention authentication requirements or rate limits. This is good transparency but could be richer.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action and resource, followed by details and use case. Every sentence contributes information without redundancy or unnecessary length.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers purpose, parameters (date, pagination, query), and use case. It also mentions return fields, which is helpful given the lack of an output schema. A minor omission is specifying sorting or total count, but overall it is complete for a list-type 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 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds context by mentioning 'for a given date' and pagination limits, but these echo the existing schema descriptions. It does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline 3.

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 authentication log records, specifies the types (IMAP/POP/SMTP/webmail), and includes key fields (timestamp, IP, email, service). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_email_logs and get_email_log_protocol by focusing specifically on authentication events.

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 clear context: it is for a given date and useful for security audits and detecting unauthorized access. It implies this tool is for authentication-specific log queries, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, which prevents a 5.

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