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

The description contradicts the annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' because it includes a 'log_event' action that appends data (a write operation). Additionally, it discloses useful behaviors like admin_query requiring an env variable and logging calls, but the contradiction undermines transparency.

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 structured as a bulleted list, which aids readability, but it is fairly lengthy and includes code-like parameter listings. It could be more concise by summarizing common parameters across actions.

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 (not shown) and the complexity of four actions with distinct parameters, the description covers the essential behavioral details for each action. However, it lacks a general explanation of typical use cases beyond 'audit log'.

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 input schema has 0% parameter description coverage, but the description compensates by detailing parameters for each action (e.g., event_type, actor, resource for log_event; team_id, since, until for query). This adds significant meaning beyond the generic schema.

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 identifies the tool as an audit log with a hash chain, and lists four specific actions (log_event, query, admin_query, verify) with their purposes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which do not appear to have audit functionality.

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 states the tool is for audit logging and implicitly guides usage by enumerating actions and their parameters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tools overlap in function, so no explicit alternatives are needed.

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