list_audit_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the required token scope, the return format (auditLogs array), and the API endpoint. It implies read-only behavior but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive. Pagination via pageSize is not mentioned in the description, only in the schema. Overall, it is fairly transparent for a list operation.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that quickly convey purpose, required permissions, return object, filtering capabilities, and API endpoint. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return array. It covers authentication, API version, and filtering options. Missing details include pagination behavior (though pageSize is in schema) and error handling. For a list tool with good schema coverage, it is mostly complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description adds that filtering is time-range and free-text, which is already present in the schema. Thus the description provides minimal additional value over the schema, justifying a baseline score of 3.

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 it lists audit log entries using the classic API, specifies the required token scope, and gives the exact endpoint. It sufficiently distinguishes itself from other list tools by naming the resource and API version.

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 explains that the tool supports time-range filtering and a free-text query, making clear when to use it for audit log retrieval. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, which would be beneficial given the presence of sibling list tools and a specific get_audit_log tool.

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