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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: results are returned newest-first, event and since act as filters, and api_key must be an admin-issued key. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure for an audit-read tool.

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 one focused sentence with a short parenthetical. It front-loads the resource and ordering, then covers filters and auth requirements with no filler or repeated schema content.

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 audit listing with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, ordering, filters, and authentication. The main omissions are explicit sibling differentiation and response-record shape, but no output schema exists and the operation is simple enough that these are not blocking.

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%, so the schema already documents event, limit, since, and api_key, including limit defaults and ISO 8601 format. The description adds only marginal meaning by grouping event and since as filters and noting api_key is admin-issued, which aligns with the high-coverage baseline of 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?

The description names a concrete resource—registration, login, revocation, and recovery records—and a specific behavior: return them in newest-first order. This is unambiguous and differentiates list_audit from sibling tools like list_users and list_credentials even without naming them.

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 provides clear usage context: retrieve auth-lifecycle audit records, optionally filtered by event and since, and requires an admin-issued api_key. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as get_stats or get_app, so it stops short of full sibling routing guidance.

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