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

Discloses authentication requirement and scope. Describes the output contents (who, what field, old/new value, timestamp), which is transparent. No contradictions with empty annotations.

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 short sentences, no wasted words. Front-loads purpose and auth requirement efficiently.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return fields (who, field, value, time). Combined with fully described parameters, it provides sufficient context for a simple 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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no new parameter-level detail, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists applied corrections (audit trail) for a kal event, specifying the resource and verb. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-event' and 'get-pending-corrections' by focusing on the history of corrections.

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?

Indicates auth is required and that it is member-scoped, providing context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'get-pending-corrections' or 'vote-correction'.

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