retrieve_assignments_audits_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the endpoint supports filtering over history; it says nothing about default page size, default ordering, or how far back history goes — details an agent paginating results would want.

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?

Very short, but the second sentence is near-verbatim repetition of the first ("List history about your assignments" vs "List and filters the history about your assignments"), and the grammar ("List and filters") is off. Nothing is front-loaded beyond the endpoint path.

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 10 all-optional filters, a fully documented schema and complete annotations, the definition supplies enough for correct invocation. The gap is only in behavioral nuance (pagination defaults, result volume), which is minor here.

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% across all 10 optional parameters, so each field (page, size, tagId, startDate/endDate, orderBy, changedBy, requestId, resourceId, x-trace-id) is already documented. The description's generic mention of "filters" adds no semantics beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List history about your assignments (audit)") plus the underlying endpoint, so an agent knows this returns change history rather than the assignments themselves. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from (retrieve_assignment_list), but the audit framing is distinct enough to separate them.

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 only usage signal is "List and filters the history about your assignments" — no statement of when to prefer this over retrieve_assignment_list or the other *audits_list siblings, and no note that all filters are optional. The agent must infer the audit-vs-current-state distinction from the name alone.

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