egress_log

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating no side effects. The description states 'Each call appends metadata-only receipt lines ... to ComplyEaze Bridge's local log on this computer,' which is a write-side effect and directly contradicts the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 dense and includes critical security context, but it front-loads warnings rather than the tool's purpose, and it repeats the local log concept. It is adequately sized but could be better structured for quick tool selection.

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?

With no output schema and one parameter, the description does describe the returned fields (tool, time, company, counts, fingerprints) and privacy limitations. However, it omits any explanation of the 'limit' parameter and contains an annotation contradiction, leaving gaps 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?

There is one parameter, 'limit', with 0% schema description coverage. The description only says results are 'bounded to the most recent receipts' but never mentions the 'limit' parameter or how to control the number of receipts returned, leaving the parameter semantically undocumented.

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 that the tool shows receipts of ComplyEaze Bridge's own tool calls, read from a local log, with specific fields listed. It distinguishes itself from Tally data tools by being an audit/egress log rather than a Tally query. However, the actual purpose is buried after two warning sentences, slightly reducing clarity.

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 what the tool shows and includes a communication warning ('Never tell the user that no data has left their computer'), but it never states when to call this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name any sibling tool for comparison. Usage context is implied at best.

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