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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully carried by structured data. The description adds only the endpoint path and the pairing rule for pagination; it says nothing about ordering, retention window, maximum reachable history, or what an event record contains.

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, purpose front-loaded, no filler or marketing language. The raw HTTP path is somewhat redundant for an agent that already has a typed schema, but it is compact and does not obstruct scanning.

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 three-parameter, single-required-field read tool with full schema coverage, complete annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and how to page it. The residual gap is ordering/scope of returned events, which is modest given the tool's simplicity.

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 organization_id, after and limit are already documented individually, which sets the baseline at 3. The sentence 'Pass after and limit together to page' does add a coupling constraint the schema does not express, but it is a single clause and stops short of clarifying cursor semantics or what happens when limit is supplied alone.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'List audit events for an organization,' and pins the exact endpoint GET /v1/organizations/{id}/audit-events. It is clearly distinct from log-oriented siblings like logs.get or logs.tail, though it never explicitly names those alternatives to route the agent.

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?

'Pass after and limit together to page' gives concrete mechanics for pagination, which is a real when/how hint. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over logs.get/logs.tail or org.get, and no statement of prerequisites such as admin scope needed to read audit events.

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