retrieve_vip_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 safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds that the operation lists and filters history, but does not disclose pagination behavior, default ordering, or time-range defaults.

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 definition is short and front-loaded with the core purpose and endpoint. The second sentence largely repeats the first, but there is no clutter or excessive length.

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 tool with fully documented schema and complete annotations, the description provides enough context to call it correctly. It does not need to explain return values because no output schema exists, though it could say more about result ordering or pagination.

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 input schema already documents page, size, vipId, date range, orderBy, changedBy, requestId, and x-trace-id. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or parameter-specific meaning beyond that baseline.

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/filtering audit history for VIPs, with the endpoint GET /v1/vips/audits. It is distinguishable from retrieve_vip_list and other audit-list siblings by the 'VIPs (audit)' framing, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with those 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus retrieve_vip_list or other audit-list tools. The phrase 'List and filters the history about your VIPs' restates purpose rather than giving usage conditions or exclusions.

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