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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds only the 'recent' and 'this company' scoping, which is useful but minimal context. It does not contradict the annotations, but it goes little beyond what annotations already convey.

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 two sentences, with the first stating the core purpose and the second listing the filter fields. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 tool with 10 optional filter parameters and an output schema, the description adequately conveys the intent and main scope ('recent', 'this company', filter categories). It does not mention ordering or pagination, but these are likely covered by the output schema and are not essential for basic use. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 baseline is 3. The description enumerates filter fields (action, resource, resourceId, etc.) but adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema property descriptions already provide. It does not explain parameter syntax, interaction, or any nuances.

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 lists recent audit log entries for the current company, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It lists the available filter dimensions but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool search_audit_logs, so it loses one point for lack of sibling differentiation.

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 a use case (listing recent audit logs with filters) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_audit_logs or get_audit_log. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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