whodb_platform_security_audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint; the description adds genuinely new context by stating the organization-management permission gate and clarifying that the workspace object targets this call only 'without changing defaults' (i.e. no session mutation). It stops short of describing result shape or pagination behavior, which is the remaining gap.

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 capability and the permission gate are front-loaded, and the sibling exclusion and workspace note each carry information. It is dense but every sentence does work; no filler.

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 12-parameter, three-mode, no-output-schema tool, the description covers modes, permissions and workspace scoping but leaves the caller guessing what an events page or a verify result looks like and how the filter parameters combine. Adequate, not 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?

At 58% schema coverage and 12 parameters, the description only reinforces the mode enum and the workspace targeting semantics (per-call, non-persistent, discoverable via hosts/orgs/projects). Filters like action, run_id, actor_id, project_id and request_id are undocumented in both places, so the description partially but not fully compensates.

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 specific verbs (search, correlate, inspect, verify) against a clearly named resource (the canonical security ledger / org hash chain), and enumerates the three modes. It also explicitly rules out a near-twin ('Distinct from data-quality audit'), so the agent can separate it from adjacent audit-like tools without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ('Requires organization management'), names the sibling it is not, and lists the three operating modes. It does not say when to choose exports over verify over events beyond the mode names, so the routing is clear but not fully spelled out.

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