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 that the tool reads the consent_ledger and returns a JSON text block with specific fields, indicating it is a read-only operation. However, it does not mention potential side effects, idempotency, or access restrictions, though these are minimal for a read tool.

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. It opens with a clear purpose sentence, followed by a paragraph detailing the return content, and ends with parameter documentation in a consistent format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 (one parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema implied), the description is complete. It explains the tool's function, the parameter, and what the output contains, including specific fields. There is no missing information needed 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining the 'limit' parameter: 'Number of most recent ledger rows to return, newest first (default 30).' This clarifies the purpose and default behavior beyond the schema's bare specification.

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 it retrieves recent consent events from the audit ledger, specifying the verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'consent events'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'log_consent_event' which writes to the ledger, thus clarifying its read-only purpose.

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 implies usage for reviewing or reporting on consent data and mentions it reads the ledger that 'log_consent_event' writes to, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is inferred rather than explicitly guided.

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