Get port-in audit history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds ordering ('newest-first'), scope ('tenant-scoped'), and specific event types, providing useful behavioral context beyond 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 concise sentences: first states purpose and ordering, second gives usage context and lists errors. No wasted words. Front-loads key information.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, events, and errors. However, without an output schema, it does not describe the return structure (e.g., fields, format). Given the simplicity of the tool and the context from sibling tools, it is mostly complete but could specify what the timeline contains.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The schema already describes the 'id' parameter as 'Port request UUID (from port_list_requests or port_create_request)'. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics, so score remains at 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 verb 'Get' and resource 'audit timeline for the port request' is specific. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like port_get_request (full request details) and port_get_progress (progress). Additional details like 'tenant-scoped, newest-first' further clarify scope.

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 states to use it 'to see who did what and when' and lists example events (submissions, cancels, etc.). It provides clear context but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it.

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