retrieve_firewall_audits_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results can be filtered; it says nothing about pagination behavior, default time range, ordering defaults, or result volume — context that matters for a 9-param list tool.

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?

It is short, but the two sentences are near-duplicates of each other and the bracketed HTTP path is low-value for an agent choosing a tool. No wasted length, but also no front-loaded differentiation.

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 annotations covering safety and a fully documented 9-param schema, the essentials are present and there is no output schema to explain. Still, a list tool with date-range and ordering filters would benefit from a sentence on default scoping and pagination expectations.

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 parameter (page, size, startDate/endDate, orderBy, changedBy, requestId, firewallId, x-trace-id) is already documented. The description's mention of filtering aligns with but does not extend the schema — 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 — listing audit history for Firewalls — and the raw endpoint [GET /v1/firewalls/audits] reinforces the resource. This clearly separates it from the many sibling audit-list tools (DNS, VIP, secret, user audits), though it does not name them 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?

The description says it 'lists and filters' firewall audit history but gives no guidance on when to choose it over retrieve_firewall (current state) or the other audit-list siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the resource name.

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