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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read-only profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the exact fields searched (action, resource, resource ID, changes JSON, metadata JSON), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions exist.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then specifies search scope. It contains no fluff or redundant restatements of the tool name, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, comprehensive parameter descriptions, and strong annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. The only slight gap is the lack of explicit alternatives in usage guidance, but overall the tool is well-specified for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema provides 100% parameter description coverage, with clear descriptions for query, limit, createdAfter, and createdBefore. The description does not add extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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: 'Search audit logs by free text' across specific fields (action, resource, resource ID, changes JSON, metadata JSON). This is a specific verb+resource pair and distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_audit_log and list_audit_logs by emphasizing free-text search across JSON fields.

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 usage for free-text searching but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_audit_logs (filtered listing) or get_audit_log (single log retrieval). No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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