retrieve_image_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 covered. The description adds only that results are historical audit entries (implying change events with actor/request identifiers), but says nothing about default time ranges, pagination behavior, or result ordering that would help an agent call it correctly.

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 second sentence largely restates the first plus the title, and the phrasing 'List and filters the history' is grammatically awkward. The useful content (audit/history of custom images) is there but delivered redundantly.

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 params all fully documented and read-only annotations in place, no output schema is needed. Still, the description leaves unaddressed the default behavior when no filters are supplied and the relationship to the other image-list endpoints, which an agent would want for this listing 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%, with all nine optional parameters (page, size, startDate/endDate, imageId, orderBy, changedBy, requestId, x-trace-id) documented in the schema itself. The description's bare mention of 'filters' adds no meaning 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?

The description states a specific verb (list/filter) and resource (audit history of custom images), which is enough to distinguish it from retrieve_image_list and retrieve_image. It is clear but never explicitly names those siblings as alternatives.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for inspecting change history of images, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over retrieve_image/retrieve_image_list, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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