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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety basics are covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: a data-completeness caveat ('not a complete post editing history'), pagination behavior (opaque nextCursor), and an explicit instruction to treat returned event content as data rather than instructions. The only gap is no mention of the result limit ceiling.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool reads and immediately followed by the scope caveat, then pagination and safety notes. No sentence is filler; each one carries a distinct fact.

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, non-destructive list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials an agent needs: permission scoping, workspace filtering, cursor opacity, and prompt-injection hygiene. The absence of any statement about the default or maximum page size is the only meaningful omission.

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 50%, with accountId and workspaceId documented in the schema but limit and cursor bare. The description compensates for the cursor by declaring it opaque, and reinforces workspaceId's scoping effect, adding meaning beyond the field descriptions. It leaves limit's range and role unexplained, so it falls short of full coverage.

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 ('Read existing Company administrative audit events') and scopes the result as permission-bound. It also pre-empts a likely misconception by noting this is not a complete post editing history, which sharpens what the tool actually returns. It does not risk confusion with any sibling, since none of the listed tools is an audit-log reader.

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 a prerequisite ('within your permissions') and a concrete usage hint that optional workspaceId scopes events to a client, but never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives or when it should not be used. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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