get_audit_trail

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

Discloses read-only nature, public data, no authentication. Describes hash-chained structure. Lacks details on idempotency or potential side effects, but for a read-only tool this is sufficient. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden.

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?

Well-structured: purpose first, then format, use cases, differentiation, safety note, parameter list. Every sentence serves a purpose; no redundancy.

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, so return values are covered. Description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, behavior, parameters. For a simple 2-parameter tool, this is fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds format example for did and ordering info for limit, but these are already in schema. Minimal added value beyond what schema provides.

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 clearly 'Get the tamper-evident audit trail' and lists specific event types (registration, card publications, disputes, job actions). Distinguishes from sibling get_attestations_received by specifying it is for peer ratings, not audit chain.

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?

Explicitly says use for compliance, due diligence, dispute evidence. Provides when not to use: 'NOT for peer ratings — use get_attestations_received'. Also directs to verify_audit_chain for integrity check.

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