audit_search

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

The description states the tool is read-only and that filters compose with AND, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or response format. Without annotations, the description carries full burden; this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loading 'Read-only' and the purpose. No wasted words, but could be slightly more structured with parameter breakdown.

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 and 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, the description lacks details on what the response contains or how to use the filters effectively. An agent would need more context for correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description only adds that 'Filters compose with AND' without explaining each parameter's values or format. Parameter names like 'kind', 'target', 'status' are self-explanatory but the description does not sufficiently compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 states the tool queries the local audit log for write operations, with a specific verb 'Query' and resource 'audit.jsonl log'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'dedup_status' which provides a quick count summary.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use to debug 'did I post that?' or to pull rate-limit history.' It also tells when to use an alternative: 'For a quick count summary use dedup_status.' This helps the agent select the correct tool.

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