veto_audit_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description (queryable log) is consistent with that. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'essential for tracing' and does not disclose details like pagination behavior or rate limits, which would add value given the absence of an 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?

The description consists of two concise sentences, front-loading the purpose and listing key filter capabilities. Every sentence contributes value without 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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and 0 required fields. The description explains the purpose and filters but omits important context such as the structure of the returned log entries (e.g., fields like timestamp, verdict, agent) and any default behavior (e.g., sorting order). Given the lack of output schema, the description could be more comprehensive.

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%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds 'Filter by session, agent, verdict, or date,' but there is no 'agent' parameter in the schema, making the description inaccurate. It also uses 'date' for the 'since' parameter, which does not clarify the ISO format or semantics beyond the schema.

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 it is a 'Queryable log of every council verdict, decision, and session event,' specifying the verb (query), resource (log), and scope (council events). It distinguishes from sibling tools like veto_council_debate by focusing on log vs. debate.

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 mentions it is 'Essential for tracing what happened and why,' implying a use case. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for similar purposes, such as veto_session_replay or veto_decisions.

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