get_audit_logs

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add the useful operational detail that an API token is required, and it indicates that the result is a filterable list. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, sorting, response shape, or any potential read limitations, so transparency is adequate but incomplete.

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 short and front-loaded, stating the core operation first and then adding filtering and authentication context. It contains little waste, but the vague 'etc.' introduces minor ambiguity. Overall it is efficient and readable.

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 list tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides reasonable context: it names the resource, indicates filterability, and states the authentication requirement. However, it leaves out pagination semantics, default ordering, and any distinction from get_audit_log_stats, so an agent may still need to infer or inspect elsewhere.

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 the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The description's mention of entity_type, user_id, and action adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. It also includes the vague 'etc.' without specifying additional filter semantics, so it stays at the baseline.

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 identifies the operation as retrieving a list of audit logs, with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions filtering capabilities, which adds scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the nearby sibling get_audit_log_stats, so it misses the full sibling-distinguishing clarity of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool instead of alternatives such as get_audit_log_stats or other listing tools. The 'API token required' note is a prerequisite rather than a selection criterion, and 'Can be filtered' states capability rather than usage context. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tool routing.

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