audit_data_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It merely implies a read-like action but does not specify whether it is read-only, requires permissions, or has rate limits. No side effects or return format are mentioned.

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?

While the description is concise, it is under-specified for a 3-parameter tool with no schema descriptions. It sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it inadequate rather than efficient.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description fails to provide enough context. The agent cannot determine what 'insights' means, how results are returned, or what filtering options do.

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 has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no explanation for 'date_range', 'user_id', or 'include_exports.' This leaves the agent to infer meaning from names alone, which is insufficient for correct usage.

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 'Track who accessed what insights,' which clearly identifies the action (track) and the resource (insights). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'track_signal_usage' or 'search_research_history,' missing an opportunity to clarify scope.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'track_signal_usage' or 'get_validation_queue.' The description lacks context for appropriate invocation or exclusions.

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