get_audit_records

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get audit records' and does not mention pagination, time filtering, search semantics, or what the response contains, leaving the tool's behavior largely undisclosed.

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 short sentence and is front-loaded, but it is concise at the expense of essential detail. It is not bloated, yet it does not carry enough information to be considered well-structured for an agent.

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 tool with 7 parameters, zero annotation coverage, and no schema parameter descriptions, one sentence is insufficient. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the filtering and pagination parameters remain completely undocumented.

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%, and the description only hints that 'organization' maps to the required zoid parameter. It does not explain limit, start_time, end_time, search_key, last_entity_id, or last_index_time, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Get audit records') and an organizational scope, so an agent can tell it is a read operation for audit data. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from overlapping sibling tools like get_login_history.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include get_login_history and other read-only queries, so an agent has no basis for choosing get_audit_records over them.

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