audit_log_tail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation ('Return') and identifies exactly what data is exposed (local audit log, dry runs, applied changes). It does not explicitly state that it makes no modifications, but the wording leaves little ambiguity for this kind of tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence carries all necessary information with no filler. It states the action, the object, the count parameter, and the log scope efficiently.

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 simple one-parameter tail operation, the description is complete: it states what is returned, from where, and in what quantity. An output schema exists to cover return-value structure, and the sibling tools are unrelated, so no additional routing context is needed.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by defining 'n' as the number of entries returned ('last n entries'), giving the single parameter meaningful semantics despite the schema providing only a name and default.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('last n entries of this server's local audit log'), and clarifies content scope with '(dry runs and applied changes)'. It is clearly distinguishable from all sibling tools, which concern campaign and ad management rather than server diagnostics.

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?

The description provides clear context: it is for retrieving recent audit log entries, and it names the log scope. There are no similar sibling tools to contrast with, so explicit alternatives are unnecessary; however, it does not state situational when-to-use guidance or exclusions.

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