List access logs

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond those annotations: results are paginated, sorted by timestamp descending, and support multiple filter dimensions. This gives an agent a clearer expectation of the tool's behavior.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the supporting filter and ordering information is compact and directly 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?

For a list operation with 10 fully documented parameters and a read-only annotation, the description covers the core invocation context: pagination, filtering, sorting, and the required order scoping. It does not describe return fields, but no output schema exists and an access-log list response is reasonably inferable.

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%, so the schema fully documents each parameter. The description adds a high-level grouping of filter types (account, date range, protocol, status, deletion flag) but no additional semantic details beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide. Baseline 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 clearly identifies the action ('Retrieve'), the resource ('paginated access logs'), and the scoping context ('domain attached to the given mail order'). This distinguishes it from sibling mail log tools like listInboundLogs and listOutboundLogs.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to fetch access logs for the domain tied to a specific mail order. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the access-log scope is evident enough to avoid confusion with other log-list tools.

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