audit_get_log

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'Retrieve' but does not state whether there are side effects, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what the response format is. The description adds minimal transparency beyond the basic 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 that immediately states the function and filtering scope. It is concise with no extraneous information, fully front-loaded with the core capability.

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?

For a tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what constitutes an audit log entry, how to specify a valid action or date range, what the 'limit' parameter controls, or what the response contains. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly without additional context.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions filtering by brand, action, and date range, which maps to brand_id, action, start_date, and end_date. However, it gives no details on acceptable formats for dates or action values, and it entirely omits the 'limit' parameter. Adds some meaning but leaves significant gaps.

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 states a clear action ('Retrieve') and resource ('audit log entries') with specific filtering dimensions (brand, action, date range). It is specific, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'audit_log' tool, which likely serves a similar purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'audit_get_cost_summary' or 'audit_log'. It does not mention any conditions that would make this the preferred choice, nor any exclusions.

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