Get audit events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral context that the events are 'private' and 'hash-only,' which indicates access restrictions and content type. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not disclose any other operational traits such as pagination or ordering.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the verb, resource, and key qualifiers without wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple read operation.

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 one required, fully documented parameter and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the clear 'evidence event history' phrasing, though explicit details about the returned event shape or ordering would make it fully complete.

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 the single parameter documentId is already documented as 'VeriLock document id or slug.' The description mentions 'for a document' but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full burden and the description does not need to compensate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Read the private, hash-only evidence event history for a document.' It clearly identifies the operation and resource type, and the 'private, hash-only' qualifier gives some differentiation from sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_evidence_manifest or get_certificate, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would route an agent toward get_evidence_manifest, verify_document_hash, or another sibling. Usage context is left entirely to inference.

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