discord_get_audit_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context: reverse-chronological ordering ('newest first') and the required 'View Audit Log' permission. It stops short of describing pagination or rate-limit behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, front-loading the resource and the access requirement. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only tool with full schema coverage and read annotations, the description covers what it is, ordering, and the permission gate. Nothing critical is missing, though a note on default result size or pagination would round it out.

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%, so limit, user_id, guild_id, and action_type are all documented in the schema. The description adds only the ordering hint (newest first) and does not clarify the audit-log action-type numbering, so it sits at the baseline for a fully documented 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a server's audit log') and adds scope detail ('who changed what') plus ordering ('newest first'). No sibling tool covers audit logs, so an agent can distinguish it cleanly from the many other read/list tools.

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 tells the agent the prerequisite ('Needs View Audit Log') but gives no explicit when-to-use framing or comparison against alternatives. Usage is only implied by the resource itself, which is a clear but minimal guideline.

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