List Organization Audit Logs

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the org-wide scope, which is helpful, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like pagination or return format. No contradictions with annotations.

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 a single sentence of 11 words, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler. It is concise and scannable, earning a perfect score.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. The schema covers parameters, and annotations cover safety, but the description lacks usage guidance or a hint at the response structure, making it incomplete for an agent to fully contextualize the tool.

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%, with descriptive text for all 11 parameters and enums for 4 of them. The description's mention of 'optional filters' adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 states the verb ('Get') and resource ('audit logs') with a clear scope ('for the whole organization'). This differentiates from sibling audit log tools that are scoped to 'my', 'user', 'resource', or 'session', though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling audit log tools (e.g., lyzr_list_my_audit_logs, lyzr_list_user_audit_logs, lyzr_list_resource_audit_logs). The description does not mention exclusions or alternatives, making tool selection ambiguous for an agent.

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