Get Audit History

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 describes a read operation ('retrieves') but does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor does it mention any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or potential side effects. The description is insufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's safety profile.

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 has two sentences but includes the redundant prefix 'Data Tool:' which adds no value since the tool name already indicates it is a data tool. It is not overly verbose but could be more concise.

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 lacks an output schema and does not explain what 'full context' entails. For a tool with two parameters and many siblings, it leaves the agent uncertain about the return value and scope. More detail is needed for completeness.

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%, with both parameters ('date' and 'audit_id') clearly described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline expectation.

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 a historical snapshot of an audit run, specifying the verb 'retrieves' and the resource 'historical snapshot of a specific audit run'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like DATA_listAudits which lists audits, and other audit-related tools.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. It lacks explicit context for selection among many sibling tools that deal with audits and data retrieval.

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