List action logs

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: results are paginated, sorted by timestamp descending, and cover both administrative and user actions, which sets accurate expectations without implying side effects.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler; the core action and scope are front-loaded, followed by filtering and ordering details. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only paginated list operation with an 8-parameter schema, the description covers the essential purpose, filters, and ordering. Minor gaps remain: it does not describe the response shape and does not explicitly contrast with sibling log-list tools, though the schema covers parameter semantics.

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 already documents every parameter and its role. The description restates the filter categories (account, date range, status) but does not add meaningful syntax or precedence details beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') plus a precise resource ('paginated account action logs for the given mail order') and clarifies the log scope as administrative and user actions. This distinguishes it from sibling mail log tools such as access, inbound, and mailbox 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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need account action logs for a mail order, optionally filtered by account, date range, or status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the scope is specific enough to route an agent correctly.

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