Get message processing logs

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, using 'List' which matches the read-only nature. It adds value by disclosing default top and ordering, but does not describe the response format or pagination behavior beyond defaults. Given the annotation, the description carries moderate additional context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and filter capabilities, followed by default behavior. No wasted words; it is concise and well-structured.

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 5 generic parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of top, skip, filter, select, or orderby, nor does it describe the returned data structure. The description leaves an agent without enough information to construct a valid filter or understand the response.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the generic OData parameters (top, skip, filter, select, orderby). It mentions filter fields like Status and IntegrationFlowName but not how to construct the filter string. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.

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 message processing logs and mentions filter capabilities (Status, IntegrationFlowName, LogStart/LogEnd). It is specific about the resource and action, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_message_processing_log_errors or get_message_processing_log_attachments, which are more specialized.

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 implies usage for listing logs and provides default behavior (top=20, ordered by LogEnd desc) but does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as error-specific logs or attachment logs. No explicit when-not or alternative guidance is given.

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