retrieve_object_storage_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 covered. The description adds that the operation is audit-history retrieval and filterable, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, return format, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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-loads the endpoint, but the two sentences are largely redundant and contain an awkward 'List and filters' construction. The second sentence repeats the first without adding useful structure.

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 audit list with nine optional, fully documented parameters and rich annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not explain the return shape, pagination expectations, or why an agent should choose this audit list over sibling audit lists, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 the nine parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description mentions filtering generally but adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource: listing object storage audit history, with the endpoint [GET /v1/object-storages/audits]. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling audit-list tools or from retrieve_object_storage_list.

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?

It implies the tool is for retrieving audit history and applying filters, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives among the many audit-list siblings. An agent must infer the appropriate use case from the word 'audit' alone.

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