retrieve_dns_audits_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that filtering is supported; it says nothing about pagination defaults, retention windows, or result ordering, which is the kind of context that would be valuable here.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the second sentence largely restates it ('List and filters the history about your DNS Zones') with a stray space before the period. Half the text is redundant rather than additive.

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 nine-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the definition covers the basic purpose and the annotations cover safety, but it leaves the agent guessing about result format, pagination behavior, and default time range. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so every one of the nine parameters (name, page, size, startDate, endDate, orderBy, changedBy, requestId, x-trace-id) is already documented. The description adds nothing beyond the word 'filters', so baseline 3 is correct.

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: listing the audit history of DNS Zones, backed by the endpoint GET /v1/dns/zones/audits. That distinguishes it reasonably well from retrieve_dns_zones_list (zones themselves) and retrieve_dns_zone_records_list, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'List and filters the history' implies the tool is used for audit investigation, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to the alternative siblings such as retrieve_record_audits_list. Usage is inferred from the name and the audit framing rather than stated.

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