valta_get_audit_trail

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It correctly indicates a read-only operation ('Read') and mentions the tamper-evident nature. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or response format beyond what is implied. With no annotations, a 4 is appropriate given the safe read action.

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 a single sentence, efficiently front-loading the action and key characteristics. No unnecessary words, every part adds value.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does, its scope, and the optional filter. It is contextually complete for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by clarifying that omitting agentId returns the global trail, which goes beyond the schema's 'Optional — filter to a single agent's audit trail' formulation.

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 action (Read) and the resource (tamper-evident, hash-chained audit trail of spend decisions). It uniquely distinguishes this tool from siblings like valta_request_spend or valta_check_balance.

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 description explains when to use the tool: to read audit trail entries for a specific agent or all agents. It provides a clear alternative (omit agentId for global view) but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or compare to sibling alternatives.

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