audit_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: read-only, append-only, return format (including both success and error cases), and that filters are optional. It also mentions that the log file cannot be read returns an error.

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 concise (five sentences) and well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then adding usage guidance and behavioral notes without redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explicitly states the return format and error case. It covers all 5 parameters indirectly, and explains the use case. No gaps are evident.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds that all filters are optional and combinable, clarifies the default limit, and explains the purpose of limit in avoiding large payloads. This adds useful context beyond the 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?

The description clearly states it searches the append-only audit log with optional filters and is read-only. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool audit_tail by specifying that audit_tail is for recent entries without filtering, while this tool is for compliance review, debugging, or verifying permission grant history.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool vs. audit_tail, and notes that all filters are optional and combinable. Also advises using limit to cap results on busy systems, providing clear usage context.

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