db_gateway__query_audit_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden and does disclose the two non-obvious behavioral limits: coverage is limited to the current process lifetime (in-memory, non-persistent) and result count is capped by audit.bufferSize (default 200). It leaves implicit that the call is read-only and says nothing about permissions or auth requirements, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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, no filler. The identity/scope statement comes first, then the operational caveats (time window, buffer cap) — exactly the right front-loading for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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?

Six optional filters with no output schema and no annotations is a lot of unstructured surface, and the description compensates well by describing the event fields and the retention/window limits. The only gap is that without an output schema the exact return shape (field names, ordering, empty-result behavior) is only sketched rather than specified.

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 100% and every filter (tool, table, operation, since, limit, deniedOnly) is documented in the schema with examples and defaults. The description reinforces what the filters select ('which tools were called, on which tables, whether allowed or denied') but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb plus specific resource: queries the gateway's *own* audit log, explicitly contrasted with the data-plane tools in the sibling list (query_table, describe_table, list_tables). It also enumerates the content of an event — tool, table, allow/deny with reason, redacted/written fields — so an agent knows exactly what class of information comes back.

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 phrase 'the gateway's own audit log' implicitly routes the agent away from query_table when it wants metadata about calls rather than data from tables, and the buffer/retention note tells the agent when this tool is *not* useful (events before process start). No explicit when-to-use sentence or named alternative sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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