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

Annotations already establish readOnly=true, destructive=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: the ledger is metadata only and revealed values are never stored or returned, which tells an agent the response cannot leak secrets. Pagination and retention behavior are still unstated.

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 filler, with the scope and the key distinction (the ledger itself versus the revealed values) front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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, zero-required-parameter list tool with fully documented filters and a rich privacy statement, an agent has enough to call it correctly without an output schema. Return-field detail is absent, but the description's "who revealed which fact of which trace, and when" implicitly sketches the record shape.

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%, including the careful note that startDate/endDate are whole calendar days in the organization time zone rather than UTC. The description adds no filter semantics of its own, so the baseline 3 for schema-carried parameters 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?

"List the PII reveal audit ledger — who revealed which fact of which trace, and when" names a specific verb, a specific resource, and even enumerates the record shape (actor, fact, trace, timestamp). That detail makes it practically impossible to confuse with nearby list tools such as lexq_logs_list or lexq_history_list, even without an explicit sibling callout.

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?

"Use for monthly access-log inspection and SIEM collection" gives concrete usage contexts, which is exactly the 4-level bar of clear context without exclusions. It does not say when to pick this over lexq_logs_list or note that it is not a substitute for general history queries, so it stops short of 5.

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