Show audit log

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

Annotations already cover readOnly and idempotent, so the safety profile is settled. The description adds real value by disclosing the return payload shape and the failure mode for unconfigured logs; it omits whether entries are truncated at some default and whether verification is computed over all entries or only returned ones.

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?

Two tight sentences plus a structured payload sketch. Front-loaded with the core action, then the return contract, then the error case — no filler.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and discharges it well with a shape literal. The remaining gap is how entries are paginated/truncated beyond limit, but the tool is simple enough that a competent agent can call it correctly.

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% and the single param already documents default 50 and max 1000. The description reinforces that it returns the newest entries, matching the schema's semantics, adding slight confirmation but no new syntax.

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?

Specific verb + resource: shows recent audit-log entries and hash-chain integrity. Nothing in the sibling list (drive_sharing_audit, drive_auth_log, drive_recent_changes) is confused with it, and the env var name plus return shape pin the scope down.

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?

Implicitly tells the agent this is for viewing recent audit entries and verification status, but gives no explicit when-to-use routing against similar tools like drive_sharing_audit or drive_recent_changes. The error condition (no audit log configured) is a useful boundary, but not usage guidance.

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