search_audit_trail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds context beyond that by explaining the data sources (in-memory rollback history and optionally the audit log file) and the conditional behavior based on MCP_AUDIT_LOG. This provides meaningful behavioral insight.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. There is no redundant or filler wording.

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?

With annotations covering safety, schema covering parameters, and an output schema present, the description completes the picture by explaining the underlying data sources and configuration dependency. The only minor omission is explicit mention that this is specific to the guardrail system, but the tool name and content make that obvious.

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 100%—all three parameters (limit, risk_filter, tool_filter) have clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Search the guardrail audit log for recent destructive actions taken.' It distinguishes this tool from sibling search tools (e.g., search_firewall_log, search_logs_by_ip) by focusing specifically on the guardrail audit log and destructive actions.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to audit recent destructive actions. It also mentions the dependency on MCP_AUDIT_LOG configuration. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the intent is unambiguous.

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