Events: List_audit_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine domain context by defining audit events as administrative changes, but says nothing about ordering, pagination semantics, or retention that would matter for a listing 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is arguably too terse for the tool's role, but there is no padding or redundancy to penalize.

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?

For a simple read-only list endpoint with full schema coverage this is minimally viable. However, with no output schema, the description gives no sense of what an audit event record contains or how results are ordered, leaving the agent to guess at the return shape.

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%, so the filter syntax, offset resume behavior, and pageSize limits are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is the expected baseline when the schema does all the work.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (audit events), and the parenthetical '(administrative changes)' disambiguates the resource from the sibling List_access_events family. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 on when to use this versus List_access_events, Count_audit_events, or List_activities. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, so the agent must infer the choice from the name alone.

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