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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds the genuinely useful pagination contract — a continuation_token is returned and must be passed back — plus the semantic content of each entry.

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 dense sentences: resource and content first, then filtering and pagination mechanics, closed by the endpoint. Nothing redundant and no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description tells the agent what an entry represents and how paging continues, which covers the main unknowns. Remaining detail (entry fields, sort order, whether time range is inclusive) is left unstated, a minor gap for a read-only list tool.

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% and all six parameters are documented there with formats, defaults, and the cross-reference to signl4_list_teams. The description restates the filter axes (team, time, message) without adding syntax or constraints beyond the schema, which is the correct baseline 3.

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?

Names the specific resource and scope: the SIGNL4 subscription audit log of changes and events, with the 'who changed what, when' content spelled out and the backing endpoint GET /v3/audits given. The verb is only implied by the name 'list', which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Gives concrete operating guidance: filter by team, time window, and message text, then feed the returned continuation_token back in for the next page. No alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use are named, but no sibling overlaps this resource either.

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