List ledger audit events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the event types (RSS imports, local content changes) and optional scoping, but does not disclose behavioral details such as ordering, pagination, or result limits beyond what the schema implies. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single sentence of 12 words, directly starting with the verb and resource. It is efficient, with no filler or redundant restatement of the title, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple two-optional-parameter tool and strong annotations, the description adequately covers the core functionality and scoping. It does not describe the return structure (no output schema), but for invocation purposes, an agent understands what the tool returns and how to optionally scope it. Missing a bit around limit semantics keeps it from a 5.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'identifier' refers to scoping to one post, but does not explain the 'limit' parameter at all (though the schema provides min/max). The description adds partial meaning but not enough to fully compensate for the low coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('timestamped RSS imports and local content changes'), with an optional scope ('to one post'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_posts (which lists posts) and list_post_versions (which lists versions), so the agent can confidently select this tool for audit events.

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 implies usage for retrieving audit events but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives. It mentions optional scoping to a post, which gives some context, but there is no direct mention of alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for version history use list_post_versions instead').

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