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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context: 'Audit records are never rewritten and never carry recipient PII,' implying immutability and privacy. However, it does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only, nor does it mention pagination behavior, ordering, or authorization requirements.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the additional behavioral notes are concise and relevant. Every sentence contributes value.

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 low-complexity list operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It lacks details on how to use the cursor for pagination, what fields the returned audit events contain, and any ordering or time-range constraints, which would help the agent fully understand the tool's behavior.

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% — both parameters have descriptions ('Opaque cursor' and 'Active organization ID'). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the verb and resource: 'List tenant audit events.' It identifies a specific, distinct resource that no sibling tool explicitly appears to cover, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other event-listing tools like commsharbor_delivery_events.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or context such as compliance or security review scenarios. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name.

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