get_audit_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context: entries are already redacted before being read, which is a behavioral trait not visible in the schema or annotations. It also states the log covers every tool call, success or error, which sets expectations about content. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the resource and scope, the second gives the use case, and the third discloses redaction behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains zero filler.

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 list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the log contains, why you'd use it, and a key behavioral caveat (redaction). It doesn't describe the return format, but since there is no output schema and the tool is a simple list, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is not mentioning pagination behavior beyond the offset parameter, which the schema already documents.

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 schema already documents all four parameters (limit, offset, date_to, date_from) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Read'), a specific resource ('this server's own local audit log'), and the scope ('every tool call, success or error'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by clarifying it is about the connector's own activity, not client data. This is clear and 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?

The description says it is 'useful for reviewing what this connector has done,' which gives clear context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list shows many data-oriented tools, and the description's emphasis on 'this server's own local audit log' implies it is not for querying business data. A clear context is provided, though no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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