Deep Forensic Audit Decode

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

The description discloses a $0.50 cost, a POST-ACTION timing requirement, and extended output features (drift_context, full chain integrity verification), which go beyond the annotations. Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the description adds meaningful behavioral context.

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 with high information density, front-loading the core purpose and cost. No redundant words.

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 simple parameter set, existing output schema, and strong annotations, the description is largely complete. It adds cost, timing, and output context, but could optionally clarify the difference from the standard decode tool, though not strictly necessary.

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 both parameters clearly described; the description does not add additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies as the schema carries the load.

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 tool as a POST-ACTION Deep Forensic Audit, distinguishing it from the sibling dcl_audit_decode by emphasizing 'Deep' and extended output with drift_context. It specifies the resource (audit chain record) and the added value (full chain integrity verification).

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 implies use for deep forensic audit scenarios where drift_context and full chain integrity verification are needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this over dcl_audit_decode or other siblings. No exclusions or alternative mentions.

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