read_report_audit_log

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the return shape (AuditResponse with events[] in latest order) and confirms the read-only nature. It provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise with a clear structure: a first line explaining what the tool does, a usage note, then Args and Returns. It is front-loaded and avoids verbosity, though it repeats some parameter details already present in the schema, which is slightly redundant but acceptable.

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 presence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, usage context, ordering, and return format. No additional information is needed for an agent to correctly invoke the tool, as all parameters are optional and clearly described.

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 descriptions cover both parameters fully, including defaults and constraints. The description repeats the parameter list and adds minor clarifications (e.g., '선택' for optional, '생략하면 전체' for report_id). This is consistent with the baseline of 3 when schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 action (조회 - retrieve) and resource (보고서 저장 감사 로그 - report save audit log) and specifies the ordering (최신순 - latest). It also includes a concrete usage scenario (AWAITING_APPROVAL → SAVED flow), which effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like list_saved_reports or save_approved_report.

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 gives an explicit trigger for when to use: when verifying execution evidence of the AWAITING_APPROVAL → SAVED flow. However, it does not mention when not to use or suggest alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions. Thus a 4 is appropriate.

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