keyring_checkout_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states it is a 'query' but does not explicitly declare read-only behavior, nor does it describe return format, pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. The phrasing 'who accessed what, when, and why' suggests it returns log entries, but the agent is left without concrete behavioral expectations.

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 concise and well-structured. The opening line conveys the core purpose immediately, followed by a compact, scannable parameter list. No redundant filler exists; each sentence 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?

While the parameter descriptions are helpful, the tool lacks an output schema and the description does not explain the return type or structure. For a query tool, an agent would benefit from knowing whether it returns a list, a count, or a summary, and whether results are paginated. This missing context leaves the definition partially incomplete for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: each parameter (agent_id, service, secret_name, days) is given a clear meaning and default behavior. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema types and defaults, enabling correct filter usage.

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 clearly states a specific action and resource: 'Query the checkout ledger — who accessed what, when, and why.' This distinguishes it from the sibling tools listed (which suggest listing, requests, and affinity), though it does not explicitly contrast with them. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 the siblings. The description does not mention contexts where this should be preferred, nor does it list any exclusions or alternatives. An agent would have to infer usage from the tool's name and purpose alone.

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