audit_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that the output is self-contained, lists what is included, and notes that verification does not depend on internal systems. It does not mention side effects or pagination behavior, but 'export' plus the self-containment statement make the key traits clear.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the value proposition; the second sentence efficiently lists contents and verification behavior. It is concise, though somewhat cryptic and jargon-heavy ('re-derive a close', 'adapter spec ids') which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The output schema exists, so return-value coverage is not the primary gap. However, the description leaves parameter semantics unaddressed and only implicitly states when to invoke the tool, so an agent would need to infer or guess on run_id and pagination. Acceptable but not complete.

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 provides no explanation of run_id, limit, or offset. An agent must infer that run_id selects the close to audit and that limit/offset paginate results, which is a significant gap the description does not compensate for.

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 identifies the tool as returning a complete audit package for re-deriving a close, and it enumerates concrete contents (proofs, rule versions, approvers, source hashes, adapter spec ids). It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from siblings like get_proof and verify_proof, though it never uses an explicit verb such as 'exports' or 'returns'.

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 phrase 'nothing that requires us' and the assertion that the four how_to_verify steps touch neither our database nor our network give a clear context: use this tool when an independently verifiable, self-contained audit artifact is needed. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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