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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: discloses the authorization requirement (admin key with audit scope, forbidden otherwise), the self-referential side effect that the export itself is logged, and truncation at the output cap. None of this is available in the annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loads the returned content, then moves to parameters, authorization, and limits. Dense but every clause carries information; a single long paragraph is slightly less scannable than a structured layout.

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 no output schema and only two parameters, the description compensates fully: it enumerates returned fields, the window format and cap, auth prerequisites, and truncation behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks – both days are inclusive and the window is capped at 366 days. It reinforces UTC handling rather than merely restating it.

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?

States a specific verb (export) and resource (the workspace's own audit log) plus the exact fields returned – time, action name, actor, target, run, model, details, in ledger order. An agent knows precisely what this produces; no sibling covers the same ground.

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?

Gives clear operational context: needs an admin-issued API key with the audit scope, other keys answer forbidden, and large windows should be shortened. It does not name an alternative tool or an explicit when-not, but the constraints establish usage well.

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