audit_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation by stating 'Get the full audit history', but does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, pagination, or whether the history is limited by time range or scope. It is accurate but minimal.

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 sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose and ordering. Every word adds value, and there is no extraneous information.

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 simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does. It could mention that the output is a list of audit entries, but the phrase 'full audit history' implies the return type. Given the context, it is largely 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?

The only parameter, 'entityName', is described in the schema with 'Name of the entity to retrieve audit history for'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that, and schema documentation coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves the 'full audit history' for a 'specific entity' in 'chronological order', using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('audit history'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_entity_versions' or 'entity_timeline' which may cover version history or timeline snapshots.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'audit_query', 'entity_as_of', or 'get_entity_versions'. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or cases where other tools would be more appropriate, leaving the agent 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.