List mailbox action logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: results are paginated, sorted by timestamp descending, filtered by date range and event type, and the email must belong to the order's domain. No contradiction 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?

Three sentences, all informative. The description front-loads the core action and resource, then adds constraints and behavior, with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 log-listing tool, the description covers the essential invocation details: target resource, required identity constraints, filters, pagination, and sort order. There is no output schema, so the return record shape is not described, but the event enum and log-type description provide enough context for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.

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 explains all eight parameters. The description reinforces the overall semantics by mentioning pagination, date range filtering, and event type filtering, but it does not add parameter-specific meaning 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve paginated mailbox action logs (message and mailbox events) for a mailbox in the given mail order.' It clearly identifies the operation's scope and content, and the event-type detail helps separate it from other mail log tools without needing to inspect schemas.

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 tells the agent what this tool returns and its scoping to a mailbox in a mail order, so usage context is implied. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with nearby siblings like mail_listAccessLogsV1, mail_listInboundLogsV1, or mail_listActionLogsV1, nor state when not to use this tool.

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