retrieve_instances_audits_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on default sort order, pagination limits, retention window for audit records, or what happens with an empty range.

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 the endpoint path is front-loaded, which is good. But the second sentence largely restates the first ('List history' / 'List and filters the history'), and the grammar slip ('List and filters') costs clarity rather than adding information.

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 read-only, paginated list endpoint with a fully documented 9-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It stops short of explaining default ordering, result volume, or how audit entries relate to the instance/actions audit siblings.

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 all 9 parameters (page, size, startDate, endDate, orderBy, changedBy, requestId, instanceId, x-trace-id) are already documented in the schema. The description only gestures at 'filters' without adding format or combination semantics, 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 concrete verb+resource: listing audit history for compute instances, with the underlying endpoint path. It is distinguishable from retrieve_instances_list (live instances), but it does not distinguish itself from the very similar sibling retrieve_instances_actions_audits_list, leaving the agent to guess which audit feed is which.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the closely-named actions-audits sibling, nor any mention of prerequisites, pagination expectations, or default time range. Only the phrase 'List and filters the history' implies a filtering use case.

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