get_audit_events

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 only says 'fetch' without disclosing pagination behavior, sort defaults, or any other nuances related to the 5 optional parameters. The examples of event types add some context, but key behavioral aspects like cursor-based pagination are not mentioned.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main action ('Fetch audit events') and provides useful examples without unnecessary verbosity. Every word earns its place.

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 covers the core purpose and gives examples, but with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, it leaves some gaps. It does not explicitly state that the result is a list of events, nor does it mention filtering or pagination capabilities, though the schema covers these details.

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?

All 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema fully documents each parameter, so the description does not need to compensate.

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 fetches audit events for the store, with specific examples (staff actions, app installations) that differentiate it from sibling tools. The verb 'fetch' and resource 'audit events' are specific and unambiguous.

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 context about what kind of events are included (staff actions, app installations), implying when this tool would be useful. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives, exclusions, or when not to use it, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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