audit_article_records

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description's 'without changing the vault' reinforces that but adds little beyond the annotations. It gives no detail on how issues are categorized or how many categories to expect.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a tidy Args block; no wasted sentences. The '1..500' and '1..90' ranges duplicate the schema's min/max, a small redundancy.

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?

Output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the non-mutation behavior and all three parameters. It is nearly complete for a read-only audit, with only the meaning of 'issue category' left implicit.

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%, so the description must carry the load, and it does via the Args block: scope explains which records are audited, limit explains 'max results per issue category', and stale_after_days explains the staleness threshold. Only minor value-add remains missing (e.g. what counts as an 'issue').

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 a specific verb+resource: auditing 'article records and social-source state' without mutating the vault. An agent can identify the operation clearly, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from a neighboring sibling like query_audit_log.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The scope parameter implies some context (articles vs social vs all), but nothing tells an agent when to reach for this tool instead of search_articles or query_audit_log.

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