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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the trail includes 'publishes, schedules, account connections, content library changes, etc.' and that filtering by action/resource/date range is possible.

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 three concise sentences with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by examples and filter capabilities, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 simple read-only tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, what data it includes, and available filters. Annotations provide safety details, so nothing critical 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 each parameter is described. The description adds meaning by grouping filters ('Filter by action type, resource type, or date range') and clarifying that the output is a timestamped trail of actions, which enriches understanding of the parameters.

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 begins with 'Retrieve audit log entries for your account,' which is a specific verb+resource pair. It further explains the content ('timestamped trail of all actions performed') and lists examples, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinct from sibling tools.

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 clearly states what the tool does and the types of actions it covers, providing context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but no sibling tool is audit-log related, so this is acceptable.

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