get_audit_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond them: results are ordered newest first. It says nothing about the default 24-hour lookback window or the 30/200 row cap behavior, which matter for interpreting an empty or truncated result.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource, content, and ordering are all delivered immediately.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and weak schema coverage, the description should explain the time window, the truncation cap, and what an entry contains. It covers none of these, leaving the agent without enough context to interpret or scope a query correctly.

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 only 25% — just 'user' is documented. The description adds no meaning for hours (lookback window, max 2160), limit (row cap), or action (the eight-value enum including login/failed_login/execute/push), so an agent must infer all three from bare schema names and defaults.

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+resource ('Zabbix audit log entries') and clarifies content with '(who changed what)', which tells the agent this is a change-history feed rather than monitoring data. It does not distinguish itself from any sibling, though no sibling appears to cover audit logs, so the risk of confusion is low.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions typically required for Zabbix audit logs), and no named alternatives such as get_problem_events for event-level history. The parenthetical '(who changed what)' only loosely implies the use case.

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