audit_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing it reads local files at ~/.advocatehub-mcp/audit/<orgId>-YYYY-MM.jsonl and legacy <orgId>.jsonl, which informs the agent about filesystem access and legacy support. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences: the first states purpose and filters, the second states storage location. There is no fluff, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 is complete enough for a read-only search tool with no output schema. It covers the resource, supported filters, and file location. It does not explicitly mention return format or ordering, but the schema's limit parameter and annotations provide some context.

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% with detailed descriptions for all parameters. The description merely summarizes the filter fields ('tool name, actor type, ISO date range') without adding new information beyond the schema, so it does not compensate beyond the schema coverage baseline.

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 'Search executed write audit entries for this tenant' with a specific verb and resource, and lists filter dimensions (tool name, actor type, ISO date range). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling audit_tail, but the word 'search' implies historical querying as opposed to tailing.

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 implies usage for querying historical write audit entries with optional filters, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like audit_tail for live tailing, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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