list_audit_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it delivers little. "List" implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about who may call it (admin-only?), entry retention, ordering, or whether pagination totals are returned — all material for an audit endpoint.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriately sized for a two-parameter list tool. It is efficient rather than padded, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing usage and behavior detail noted elsewhere.

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?

For a simple, optional-parameter list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It still leaves the agent guessing about the shape of an audit entry and whether special access is required.

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 page and per_page are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no extra semantics such as default ordering, max per_page, or filtering by actor/date, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List audit log entries") plus a scope qualifier ("for administrative actions"). No sibling tool covers audit logs, so it is distinguishable by resource alone, though it could say more about what an entry contains.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the analytics tools (get_analytics_overview, get_analytics_timeseries) that also expose activity data, nor any mention of prerequisites such as admin permissions. The agent is left to infer everything about appropriate use.

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