get_consent_ledger

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

The description does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive, and no annotations are present to clarify. The parameter description is minimal, and there is no mention of side effects, rate limits, or data sensitivity.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. It avoids unnecessary repetition but lacks structured formatting like bullet points or subheadings.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description adequately addresses the input and basic functionality. However, it does not explain the nature of 'consent events', ordering, or potential edge cases like empty results.

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 description clarifies the 'limit' parameter by stating it controls 'number of most recent rows to return' with a default of 30. This adds meaning beyond the schema's basic type and default, though constraints like minimum value are absent.

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 the action 'retrieve' and the resource 'recent consent events from the audit ledger', making the purpose unambiguous. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that involve adding, searching, or modifying data.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparisons with other tools like search_literature or log_consent_event.

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