retrieve_handles_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 safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds the endpoint path and the notion of a filtered history, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result volume, which would matter with page/size parameters.

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 and front-loaded, but the second sentence ('List and filters the history about your handles') largely restates the first and is grammatically awkward. The useful content is a single clause.

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 the safety profile, full schema coverage on all nine params, and no output schema, most of the agent's needs are met. However, nothing indicates what an audit entry contains or how pagination defaults behave, which is a meaningful gap for a list endpoint.

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 (page, size, startDate/endDate, orderBy, handleId, changedBy, requestId, x-trace-id) is already documented. The description adds nothing beyond a vague mention of filtering, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('List history about your handles (audit)') and includes the endpoint path, so an agent can tell it returns handle audit entries rather than handle records. It doesn't explicitly contrast with reference siblings like retrieve_tag_audits_list, but the 'handles' scope does the differentiation implicitly.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only implicit cue is 'filters the history', which hints at the filtering use case but leaves selection up to inference.

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