audit_log_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds a behavioral caveat about 'reason' values being raw moderator-controlled data and fenced in human-readable text, which is valuable beyond the schema.

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 uses labeled sections (Purpose, When to use, Example, Returns) with no fluff. Each section earns its place and is front-loaded with the purpose.

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 covers what the tool does, when to use it, an example, return shape, and a data-safety caveat. With an output schema present and read-only annotations, nothing significant is missing.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters. The description adds a concrete example mapping action_type 20 to MEMBER_KICK and shows usage of guild_id and limit, which enriches the bare schema definitions.

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 opens with 'Fetch audit log entries for a guild,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on audit logs and mentions the guild context.

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 'When to use' section explicitly frames this for investigating moderation actions like 'who kicked X?' and post-incident forensics. It provides clear context but does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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