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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the 30-day-per-call window limit and the three accepted auth paths ('audit' scope API key, buyer session, or Opedd connector sign-in). It stops short of describing pagination or response shape.

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 most important content (what is returned) is front-loaded, followed by filter, limits and auth in efficient order. The sentences are dense but each carries information; no filler.

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, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing return values (audit records with licence terms and attestation), plus filters, the time-window limit, and auth requirements. Only pagination/response-size behavior is left implicit, a minor gap for a read 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 coverage is 100%, so the enum values and ISO timestamp formats are already documented. The description adds marginal value by restating the event_type options and imposing the 30-day constraint on from/to, but does not explain limit or cursor behavior beyond what the schema says.

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 and resource ('Returns the account's audit records, one per licensed access') and details the record contents (licence terms, Merkle root, inclusion proof). It does not name or distinguish itself from any sibling tool, so it lands 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?

Implies usage via the event_type filter values and the 'at most 30 days per call' constraint, giving the agent a sense of how to scope a query. However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives like get_compliance_dossier or verify_license, and there are no explicit exclusions.

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