retrieve_user_audits_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds that results can be filtered and paginated, but says nothing about ordering defaults, pagination limits, or what an audit entry contains. With the bar lowered by annotations, this is adequate but thin.

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?

The description is short but internally redundant: the title line and the body both say 'List ... history about your users,' and the GET path duplicates annotation info. Front-loaded purpose is fine, but two near-identical sentences waste space.

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 9-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose and filtering but omits return shape, default sort order, and relationship to other audit endpoints. Annotations handle the safety profile, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 are self-documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, 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 clear verb (list/filter) and resource (audit history of users) and includes the HTTP endpoint. It is distinguishable from retrieve_user_list or retrieve_role_audits_list by naming 'users' and 'audit'. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the many other *audits_list siblings.

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?

'List and filter the history about your users' implies filtering but gives no guidance on when to use this vs the other audit tools (tag, role, dns, etc.) or vs retrieve_user_list. No exclusions, prerequisites, or default behavior are provided.

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