get_consent_ledger

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('Reads the consent_ledger') and the return format, but omits details like authentication needs or rate limits. However, for a simple retrieval tool, the transparency is adequate.

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, using five sentences including structured Args and Returns sections. It front-loads the main purpose and every sentence provides unique value without redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's simplicity, the description covers the purpose, input parameter, return fields (id, timestamp, action, data_classification, agent_slug, notes), and relationship to the sibling tool. It is complete enough for an agent to use effectively.

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 single parameter 'limit' is fully described with meaning ('Number of most recent ledger rows to return, newest first'), default value (30), and ordering. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, especially given 0% schema description coverage.

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 tool retrieves recent consent events from the audit ledger, specifying the verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'consent events'. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'log_consent_event' by noting that it reads the ledger that the sibling writes to.

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 for use: reviewing or reporting on sensitive data treatment. It implicitly differentiates from the writing counterpart by stating it reads the consent_ledger that log_consent_event writes to, but lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, which keeps it from a top score.

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