audit_trail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the data source (local storage or cloud API) and that it is free, but fails to mention whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description lacks important behavioral context.

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 extremely concise with two sentences: the first states the main purpose, the second adds a key feature (returns from two sources) and a cost note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is well front-loaded.

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 the tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not describe the return value format, pagination behavior, or how parameters interact (e.g., using receipt_id vs agent_id). More detail is needed for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 input schema covers all four parameters with descriptions, meeting 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add significant extra meaning beyond the schema; it provides contextual background about governance receipts and storage sources but does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'governance audit trail', providing a specific action and object. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on retrieving receipts, whereas siblings like 'govern_action' and 'compliance_check' involve different operations.

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 mentions 'Free to use' regarding cost, but does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool over its siblings (compliance_check, govern_action) or under what circumstances it is appropriate. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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