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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'Requires authentication', which is useful context, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or what 'recent' means. With annotations handling safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The scope is front-loaded and the authentication requirement follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only tool with no required parameters and a fully documented schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns (audit logs), scope (user's logs across all services), and a prerequisite (authentication). No output schema exists, so return value details are not expected. The only slight gap is not disambiguating from getRecentActivity, but the scope phrase largely covers this.

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 the schema already documents page, size, and sessionKey. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('get'), a clear resource ('audit logs for the authenticated user'), and a scope qualifier ('across all services') that distinguishes it from domain-scoped tools like getDomainAuditTrail. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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 phrase 'for the authenticated user across all services' implies when to use this tool, and 'Requires authentication' sets a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like getDomainAuditTrail or getRecentActivity, nor does it state when NOT to use them.

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