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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, closed-world operation, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: default 7-day and maximum 31-day windows, 30-event default and 100-event maximum with truncation flag, newest-first ordering, and the exclusion of ApiKeyAuthSuccess events unless explicitly named. This is exactly the kind of operational context an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 core purpose and remains information-dense without filler. It is a single long paragraph rather than a structured breakdown, but every sentence contributes operational detail about scope, defaults, exclusions, or filtering.

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 complex query tool with no output schema and six optional parameters, the description is complete: it explains what is returned, how events are ordered, default and maximum windows and limits, truncation behavior, excluded event types, and the role/plan requirements. 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description restates defaults and examples for from/to, limit, action, actor, and resource_uuid, but adds little semantic detail that is not already present in the schema fields.

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: it lists who changed what in a project, explicitly naming the Audit Log page and the event contents. It distinguishes itself from sibling list/get tools by framing the tool as the audit-history endpoint with its own plan and role constraints.

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 clear context for when the tool is appropriate (owners and admins on the Business plan, retrieving project change history) and explains how to use resource_uuid to narrow to one monitor, page, or policy. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative such as get_recent_changes or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of the top score.

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