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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the plan-gating behavior and the failure return path, plus ordering ('newest first'). It says nothing about pagination behavior across offset/limit, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Two sentences, no waste, and the highest-value information (scope and ordering) is front-loaded before the plan caveat. Nothing is repeated from the structured fields.

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 read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers access gating, scope and ordering. It could have closed the loop on pagination semantics (defaults/max are only in the schema) 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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (limit, action, category, offset) are already documented in the schema. The description gestures at event categories ('API-key, deployment and billing events') but adds no filtering syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is right.

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 verb+resource (list audit log) and narrows scope precisely: events 'where you were the actor' and 'newest first'. That scope distinguishes it from siblings like list_api_keys or list_builds, which return resources rather than actor-scoped event history.

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 states the precondition for use (a plan that includes audit logs) and what happens when that precondition fails (an upgrade message), which is real routing guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as the upgrade tool, but the fallback path is implied clearly enough for an agent.

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