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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: newest-first ordering, redaction of outbound-target auth fields, retention policy (auditRetentionDays from get_project, default 365 days, purged by cleanup), and the exact return shape. This is substantial behavioral context.

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 description is concise and well-structured: four sentences each add distinct information (purpose, scope, redaction, retention, response shape). It's front-loaded with the primary action and contains no fluff.

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 fully describes the return object ({total, limit, offset, retentionDays, rows[]}) and row fields. It also covers ordering, redaction, and retention, making it complete for a read-only list tool with 7 optional parameters.

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?

All 7 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds minimal additional parameter meaning—it echoes limit/offset in the return shape but doesn't explain parameter syntax or format beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List project audit-log entries, newest first.' It names a specific resource (audit-log entries) and provides scope ('Captures who changed what — lines, endpoints, targets, API keys'), distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list_api_keys or list_endpoints.

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 description implies the tool's use case (inspecting project audit history) and gives context about ordering and content. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use, but no sibling tool covers audit logs, so the context is sufficient.

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