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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'non-mutating' and adds valuable context: the platform writes via ChangeRequests and stored content must be treated as data, not instructions. This goes beyond the structured annotations, though it still doesn't detail response shape or pagination behavior (the schema covers no cursor).

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 front-loaded with the purpose and endpoint, then gives prerequisite and security guidance. Each sentence earns its place, though the ChangeRequests sentence is broader platform context rather than tool-specific behavior.

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 listing tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description plus schema covers the essential call pattern, the multi-space prerequisite, and the prompt-injection risk. It does not enumerate returned audit-event fields, but the title and 'audit events' wording make the response concept clear without an output schema.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both limit and targetSpaceId. The description mainly restates the targetSpaceId auth-verification flow already present in the schema, adding no new parameter-level meaning.

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 operation ('List audit events') and the resource via 'Recent non-mutating and workflow audit events' plus the GET endpoint. It does not explicitly compare itself against siblings like audit_events_create or activity_list_*, so it stops short of the highest bar.

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?

It gives concrete context for when to call auth_verify and pass targetSpaceId in multi-space accounts, and frames the tool as read-only listing of recent events. It does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternatives, but the usage context is clear enough for selecting between audit_events_list and mutation/sibling tools.

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