discord_read_audit_trail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema behavior: the trail is in-memory, capped at 500 entries, and lost on process restart, plus it records previewed-but-not-applied calls. These are real durability/coverage caveats, though return shape and ordering are left to the output schema.

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 with the core definition, then the sibling disambiguation, then retention caveats. Dense but every clause carries information an agent needs; no filler or 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers scope, what is recorded, retention limits, restart loss, and the sibling distinction — everything an agent needs to decide and call correctly for a single-optional-param read tool.

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 coverage is 100% with a documented limit (default 50, max 500), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description still adds meaning by explaining that the underlying trail is capped at 500, which justifies the parameter's ceiling and tells the agent the limit cannot reach older history.

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 and resource ('Read this MCP server's own record of what it changed') and enumerates the recorded fields: tool call, timestamp, guild, applied vs previewed, failure. It explicitly negates the confusingly-named sibling discord_get_audit_log, so an agent can disambiguate without opening either schema.

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?

Provides an explicit when-to-use ('what did the bot just do?') and a when-not/alternative ('This is NOT Discord's audit log (use discord_get_audit_log for that)'). Both the positive trigger and the exclusion are named directly.

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