keycloak_list_admin_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, lowering the burden. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context by noting that admin event logging must be enabled for the query to be meaningful, and frames the result as audit-trail data. It does not describe return shape or behavior when logging is disabled, but the prerequisite is a valuable disclosure.

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 one tight sentence that leads with the core action, defines the resource, gives concrete examples, and adds a necessary prerequisite. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler.

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 list/search tool with a rich schema covering most of the 10 parameters, this description is largely sufficient. It provides the domain framing and prerequisite, while the schema handles filters and paging. It could be more complete about return value assumptions and ordering, but no output schema exists and the described scope is clear.

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 90%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description's examples ('who created this user, who changed that client') loosely map to authUser/authClient filters but add no direct parameter-level details 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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a specific resource ('admin events') and defines what those are: the audit trail of realm changes. It provides concrete examples and conceptually distinguishes this from keycloak_list_events, which covers user 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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: for changes made to the realm itself, not user-level activity. It also includes a prerequisite ('Requires admin event logging to be enabled'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions under which another tool should be used, so it stops short of a 5.

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