audit_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool surfaces recent decisions and reports whether the hash chain verifies, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe behavior when the chain fails verification, leaving some ambiguity.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core content ('Recent Second Opinion decisions') and the unique verification aspect compactly.

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 no annotations, the description is the only source of return-value and safety information. It communicates the general content of the result but not its shape, ordering, or what 'chain verifies' means in the output. For a simple one-parameter tool this is mostly adequate, but there are gaps.

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?

The single parameter `limit` has no schema description and the description does not mention it directly. 'Recent' hints at limiting the number of entries, and the parameter name plus default value make it reasonably inferable, but the description adds almost no explicit meaning beyond the schema.

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 identifies the resource (hash-chained audit log of Second Opinion decisions) and the distinctive output (whether the chain verifies). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `second_opinion` by focusing on audit history rather than creating/getting a decision, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists'.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `second_opinion` or `list_setups`. The context can be inferred from the tool name and sibling names, but the description itself provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.

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