List recent audit events

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior; the description adds valuable context beyond them: the auth requirement ('tool policy gate'), the Decision-System-of-Record scope, and the newest-first ordering. It does not contradict the 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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, context, exclusion of siblings, read-only safety, parameter note, and auth. The most important scoping information is front-loaded, and there is 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?

Given a single optional parameter, rich annotations, an output schema, and clear sibling guidance, the description provides everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly. Nothing important is missing.

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 the single limit parameter is already well documented in the schema with default and meaning. The description only restates 'limit caps the list (default 20)', adding no semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') with a clear resource ('newest Decision-System-of-Record audit events') and lists the event fields. The 'newest first' ordering and explicit contrast with sibling tools make the purpose unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('inspect what the kernel just decided') and when not to use it for attestation evidence or cache metrics, naming the alternatives attestation_recent and cache_stats. No inference is required.

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