Search Audit Log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior about result ordering and cap ('most recent matches up to the limit'), but does not mention retention, authorization requirements, or what an empty result means. No contradiction.

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?

Two direct sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no wasted text. The result-ordering note is compact and useful.

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?

This is a seven-parameter search tool with zero parameter descriptions and a nested date_range object, yet the description explains only a subset of parameters and no formats. An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, but the filtering semantics are under-specified for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only lists five filter names and omits project_number entirely. It does not explain the boolean status field, the date_range object shape (start/end), date formats, or how limit interacts with the maximum of 1000.

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 a specific verb (Search) and resource (operational telemetry audit logs), enumerating the main filter dimensions. It distinguishes itself from generic entry searches through the 'audit logs' framing, though it does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when this tool should be chosen over nearby tools like search_entries, team_search, or search_commits. The usage context is implied by the 'audit logs' resource but never stated as a when/when-not rule.

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