gateway_admin_audit_summary

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds the required telemetry:read scope and the grouping dimensions, which are behavioral details not captured by the annotation. This goes beyond what the structured data provides, though it does not describe output format or potential limitations.

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 conveys the action, resource, grouping dimensions, and a permission requirement. There is zero wasted text, and it reads efficiently.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (covering return values) and annotations cover the read-only nature, the description is largely complete. It states what the tool does and the required permission. It could optionally mention the default time window (days default 7) or that all parameters are optional, but these are available in the schema defaults. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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 0% – no property has a description. The description mentions 'system' as a grouping dimension, but it does not explain the meaning of 'days', 'limit', or 'actor_subject', nor how they affect the summary. Since the schema provides no semantics and the description only partially covers them, the tool fails to adequately compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Summarize') and resource ('audit events') with explicit grouping dimensions (event, tool, system, decision, status). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gateway_admin_audit_search (which likely returns detailed events) and gateway_telemetry_usage_summary (which focuses on telemetry usage). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives. The permission note ('Requires telemetry:read') is about authorization, not usage context. Usage is implied by the name and the summary action, but the tool does not explicitly say 'use this for summaries, not raw logs' or mention any sibling alternatives.

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