retrieve_domains_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 fully covered structurally. The description adds only that results can be filtered, and says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering defaults, or what an audit entry contains — modest added value over the annotations.

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 and front-loaded with the resource and endpoint. It does waste a clause by restating the same idea twice ('List history about your Domains' / 'List and filters the history about your Domains'), and the second sentence is ungrammatical.

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?

With nine optional parameters and no output schema, the description should say at minimum that results are paginated and that all filters are optional (i.e., an unfiltered call returns the full audit history). Annotations carry the safety profile, but the retrieval behavior is underspecified for a nine-parameter list tool.

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% (page, size, domain, startDate/endDate, orderBy, changedBy, requestId, x-trace-id all documented inline). The description adds no extra meaning about filter combination semantics or the orderBy format, 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 (list/filter) and resource (Domains audit history) and names the underlying endpoint GET /v1/domains/audits. It is distinguishable from list_domains or retrieve_domain by the explicit 'audit' framing, though it never names those siblings to reinforce the distinction.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternatives (list_domains, retrieve_domain, or the other *_audits_list tools). An agent must infer from the word 'audit' alone that this is for historical change records rather than current domain state.

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