Get Audit Log By ID

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

Annotations already communicate read-only and idempotent safe behavior. The description adds the scoping constraint of fetching a single entry by ID, but provides no further behavioral context (e.g., error behavior, return format, permissions). With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does. No wasted words, and the key information (action, resource, identifier) is immediately visible.

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 simple get-by-ID operation with excellent schema coverage and safe annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It could mention the return object or absence behavior (e.g., 404) for completeness, but the simplicity and sibling context reduce the need. Overall, well-covered for its complexity.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters, with log_id described as 'Audit log id'. The description's 'by its id' adds no meaningful semantic beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 for high schema coverage is correct.

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 'Fetch a single audit log entry by its id' uses a specific verb (fetch), identifies the resource (audit log entry), and specifies the scope (single, by id). This clearly distinguishes it from the many list-type audit log siblings (e.g., list_org_audit_logs).

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 use for retrieving a single log entry when an ID is known, as opposed to list tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Guidance is thus implied rather than direct.

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