inforcer_audit_search

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior; the description reinforces this with 'Read-only' and adds paging behavior not visible in the annotations: results are returned as a page of events plus a continuation token. This is useful given there is no output schema.

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 extremely compact: two sentences with no redundant or promotional language. The primary action is front-loaded, and the paging/read-only details are presented efficiently.

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 read-only search tool with all-optional parameters, this description covers the essential invocation facts: what it searches, that filtering is optional, and what the response shape is. It does not specify ordering or default page size, but those are not critical for a first call given the schema documentation.

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 all five parameters are already documented at the schema level. The description adds only that filters are optional and that paging uses a continuation token, which only marginally extends the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('Inforcer activity (audit) log'), making the tool's role immediately clear. No sibling tool covers audit-log search, so the resource itself differentiates it from the other 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 clearly signals when to use this tool: when an audit-log search is needed. It also notes that all filters are optional, so an agent can call it with zero arguments for a first page. It does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools, but the standalone purpose is clear.

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