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 conveyed. The description adds the scope 'triggered via the API' and mentions filtering, which is useful, but it lacks details about pagination, required request ID, or return 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 repetitive ('List history... - List and filters...') and contains a typo ('your triggered'). It wastes space without adding new information.

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?

With 10 parameters, no output schema, and only minimal annotations, the description should explain what is returned, how filtering works, and prerequisites. It does none of this, leaving the agent under-informed for a moderately complex tool.

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 bears the full burden of explaining parameters. It only says 'filters' generically, providing no meaning for page, size, startDate, endDate, changedBy, instanceId, or the required x-request-id.

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 clear verb ('List') and resource ('history about your actions (audit) triggered via the API'), which is understandable on its own. However, it does not explicitly mention 'instances' or differentiate this from the many sibling audit-list tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternative audit-list tools or when not to use it. The description only says it lists and filters, without any context or exclusions.

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