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 full behavioral burden and does disclose two important constraints: results are limited to events since this server process started, and the count is capped by audit.bufferSize (default 200). It does not state whether the call is read-only/side-effect free, permission requirements, or how results behave past the cap, so it falls short of complete 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 dense sentences with zero filler: the primary purpose and queryable dimensions come first, and the retention/cap caveats follow. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema read tool with six fully documented optional params, the description covers purpose, filters, and retention limits well. It could go further by sketching the returned event shape or empty-result behavior, which is the one remaining gap given there is no output schema.

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 the baseline is 3; the description earns above baseline by mapping the queryable dimensions (tool, table, allow/deny, redaction/write) directly onto the filter parameters, giving the agent a conceptual model of what each filter selects. It adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema, so it stays short of 5.

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 ('Query the gateway's own audit log') and immediately enumerates what is inspectable: tool calls, tables, allow/deny outcomes with reasons, and redacted/written fields. This clearly separates it from siblings like query_table and gateway_status, which read data or server state rather than the gateway's own event log.

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 gives useful scope context (events since process start, capped by audit.bufferSize, default 200) but never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied by the scope statement rather than explicitly framed.

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