search_audit_log

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

Annotations already indicate this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true). The description adds some context by specifying the resource ('Azure AD unified audit logs') and analysis purpose, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior beyond what annotations provide.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema coverage and annotations, though it could be slightly more structured with usage guidance.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (search/analysis function), rich annotations (covering safety profile), and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but has gaps. It lacks output format details (no output schema) and doesn't provide usage guidance relative to siblings, making it minimally 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('filter' and 'top') well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Search and analyze Azure AD unified audit logs' with specific domains ('security events, user activities, and compliance monitoring'). It distinguishes from most siblings by focusing on audit logs, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'generate_audit_reports' which might be related.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'generate_audit_reports' or 'execute_graph_search' that might overlap, nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts beyond the general domains listed.

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