list-directory-audits

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the operation is read-only, requires specific admin-consented permissions (AuditLog.Read.All + Directory.Read.All), and only covers a 30-day retention period. This helps the agent set expectations about data availability and authorization.

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 dense but well-organized, front-loading the tool's purpose before moving to filter syntax, retention, and permissions. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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 read-only audit listing tool with seven optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context to call it correctly: what the log contains, how to filter, the time field, retention limits, and required permissions. Pagination behavior is already covered in the input schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds significant value by giving domain-specific $filter examples that correct the generic mail-oriented filter example in the schema. It also clarifies that timeRange/from/to apply to activityDateTime, giving the agent precise parameter semantics for audit queries.

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 identifies the resource as the Entra directory audit log and specifies exactly what it contains: who changed what and when, for users, groups, apps, password resets, and role assignments. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, none of which cover directory audit log retrieval.

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 concrete usage guidance: time filtering applies to activityDateTime and includes realistic $filter examples for category, activityDisplayName, and targetResources. It also states the retention window and required permissions. It does not name alternative tools to switch to, but no direct sibling alternative exists among the listed tools.

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