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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavior the annotations cannot: results are ordered newest first, activity performed through an AI assistant is included, and the response reports whether the hash chain still verifies. It does not describe pagination or the shape of the response, which keeps it below a 5.

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 clauses: what it returns, what it also reports (hash chain verification), and where to go instead. The scope and ordering are front-loaded and no sentence is redundant.

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 and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essentials: the resource, its two scopes, ordering, and the notable verification field in the response. Minor gaps remain around result volume/paging behavior, but nothing an agent needs in order 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 all three parameters are already documented with types, bounds and defaults. The description only adds the framing that the trail can be scoped to a single request ('or one request's'), which maps loosely to request_id, and says nothing about limit or its default. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter detail.

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 names a specific resource (a site's tamper-evident audit trail) and its two scopes (whole site, or one request's events), plus ordering ('newest first') and content ('who did what and when'). It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling get_request, so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

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 clear routing rule: use this for historical/tamper-evidence purposes, and use get_request for a request's current state. That is an explicit alternative with a selecting condition. It stops short of mentioning other siblings such as list_requests or list_sites, so it is not a full when/when-not map.

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