Look up an audit log entry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing what the entry actually contains (request, response summary, old values of a write), but says nothing about behavior on missing IDs, retention windows, or error responses.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited payload list; every clause carries information and there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies purpose and return-content semantics adequately. The only shortfall is the absence of sibling routing guidance relative to pinterest_ads_audit_tail.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter burden. 'By ID' does clarify that audit_id is the audit log entry identifier rather than an account or campaign ID, which is meaningful, but it gives no format, length, or sourcing guidance.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Look up') with a specific resource ('an audit log entry by ID') and even names the entry's constituents (request, response summary, old values of a write). It is clearly distinguishable from listing-style siblings, though it does not explicitly name pinterest_ads_audit_tail as the alternative.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you already have an audit ID. However, the description never states the alternative (pinterest_ads_audit_tail for browsing recent entries) or what to do when the ID is unknown, leaving the agent to infer the routing decision from sibling names alone.

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