Audit log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'tamper-evident' and 'newest first,' which is useful behavioral context, but it leaves 'starting point' vague and does not describe pagination or failure behavior beyond what the schema provides.

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 short sentences carry the needed information: the first names the operation and ordering, the second lists optional inputs. There is no wasted wording, and the most important context 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?

With an output schema, complete parameter documentation, and safety annotations, the description is nearly sufficient for correct invocation. The only minor gap is the ambiguous phrase 'a starting point' rather than explicitly naming before_seq, but the schema disambiguates it.

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%, and each parameter is documented in the input schema. The description paraphrases 'limit, starting point, or action id' but adds no semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Reads') and a clear resource ('tamper-evident audit log'), and states the ordering guarantee ('newest first'). This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like verify_audit_chain or list_pending_actions.

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 core use case is implied by 'Reads the tamper-evident audit log,' but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as verify_audit_chain. The optional-filter sentence is about invocation details, not tool selection, so the agent has to infer usage context.

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