audit_history

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

The only annotation is readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds a meaningful privacy trait: cell values are not exposed in results. However, it says nothing about ordering, time window for 'recent', pagination, or whether the limit is a hard cap, which matter for a history-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 tight sentence with the core action front-loaded. 'Recent' is the only vague term, but the brevity leaves room that could have been spent on the undocumented limit parameter.

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?

Output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so those burdens are lifted. Still, for a history-query tool the description omits filtering window, ordering, and limit semantics, leaving gaps an agent would hit on first call.

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 0% for the single parameter 'limit', and the description never mentions it — no meaning, default (20), or upper bound is conveyed anywhere. The one parameter an agent must set is effectively undocumented.

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 and resource ('Return recent dataveil audit events') plus a scope qualifier ('recent'). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling run_audit, so an agent can't immediately tell which one to call.

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 run_audit, no prerequisites, no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the sibling list.

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