audit_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds 'verified' records and explicitly states that command bodies and credentials are never included, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the safety hints. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a useful clarification. No redundant or extraneous content; every word earns its place.

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?

With four optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the content type but leaves filtering semantics and return structure unexplained, making correct invocation uncertain for an AI agent.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters jobId, limit, since, or action. An agent cannot infer what these parameters control or how to use them, so the description completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema hints.

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?

Clearly states the tool queries verified RunBeacon audit records, with a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('audit records'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like job_list and credential management, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Implies use for accessing audit metadata and clarifies that content excludes commands/credentials, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of typical scenarios or exclusions, so guidance is only incidental.

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