rca_admin_read_audit_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint; the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: plan-gated execution with a security_violation-style error, strict privacy scope (never another user's activity), and snapshot semantics. It also describes the return shape. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core behavior and uses short paragraphs for plan requirements, use cases, args, and returns. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary because 'one entry per tool call' is repeated, but every major block earns its place.

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 plan gating, privacy constraints, and snapshot semantics, the description is complete: it covers prerequisites, failure mode, intended use, limitations, parameter format, and return JSON structure. An agent has enough to decide when and how to invoke it, with the schema filling in token/client_id details.

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 description enriches hour_key with a concrete YYYYMMDD_HH format, an example, and the default-to-current-UTC-hour behavior. The schema already documents token, hour_key, and client_id, so the description does not need to repeat all fields, though mentioning client_id in the Args block would have been slightly more complete.

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 names a specific verb and resource: reading the caller's own structured audit log entries for a given hour bucket. It also clarifies granularity (one entry per tool call) and content (tool, timestamp, success/denied), which distinguishes it from all sibling tools. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

It gives explicit use cases: investigating why a call was denied or confirming a destructive action, plus an exclusion: not suited to real-time monitoring because it's an hourly snapshot. It also states the prerequisite audit_log_export feature/Pro plan and names rca_admin_show_plan_info as a way to check eligibility.

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