retrieve_private_network_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 only that results can be filtered, without disclosing pagination defaults, ordering defaults, retention window, or what an audit entry contains — context that would matter for a 9-parameter list endpoint.

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 ('List and filters the history about your Private Networks') is near-verbatim restatement of the first, and the bracketed endpoint path duplicates the tool name. One sentence would have earned its place; the second largely does not.

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 listing tool with no output schema and zero required parameters, the definition is minimally adequate. It leaves unstated what an audit record looks like, what the default page size and ordering are, and whether the list is scoped to a single privateNetworkId or account-wide — meaningful gaps given no output schema exists to fill them.

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?

All nine parameters carry schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description mentions filtering in general but adds no detail on date-range semantics, orderBy syntax, or how changedBy/requestId combine — the baseline 3 applies when the schema fully documents parameters.

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: listing audit history for Private Networks, and the embedded endpoint path reinforces the resource. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many sibling audit-list tools (retrieve_user_audits_list, retrieve_vip_audits_list, etc.) or from retrieve_private_network_list, so an agent must infer the difference from the name alone.

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 call this versus the other audit endpoints or the plain private-network list/retrieve tools, and no prerequisites are mentioned. Usage is only weakly implied by the phrase 'history about your Private Networks'.

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