List audit events

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds a useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: filters are passed as ordinary named inputs and the server converts them into Jisr's bracketed query syntax, preventing an agent from manually constructing that syntax. It does not discuss pagination or output shape, but the annotations lower the bar for safety disclosure.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the important encoding behavior is stated in the second sentence. Every sentence contributes meaningful, non-redundant information.

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 list endpoint with all optional parameters and safety already disclosed by annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It explains filtering, names the filter dimensions, and warns about the bracket syntax conversion. Pagination and return fields are not described, but no output schema exists and the annotation profile makes these gaps minor.

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 description coverage is low at 29%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully identifies the filterable parameters (moduleName, eventName, eventType, fromDate/toDate) and clarifies the server-side encoding behavior. cursor and pageSize are not described, but they are conventional and the overall filter semantics are substantially clarified beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Lists Jisr audit events'. It further distinguishes the scope by naming the filter dimensions (module, event name, event type, date range), which is more specific than the title alone and clearly separates it from the sibling list tools that target different resources.

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 implicitly establishes when to use this tool: whenever Jisr audit events need to be listed and filtered. It provides clear context about the supported filters but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, though no sibling tool competes for audit events.

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