get_audit_log

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses retention behavior (90-day deletion checked once per startup), best-effort company tagging, that all read and write calls are logged, and outcome categories. This is substantial behavior context the annotations do not provide.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed immediately by the critical retention caveat and typical use cases. Every sentence adds needed context and none are redundant or ornamental.

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 seven parameters and no output schema, the description still tells an agent what entries contain, how outcome and company are represented, what the retention limits are, and when to use the summary format. No critical call-time decision is left unexplained.

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 every parameter. The description contributes marginal context such as the purpose of writesOnly and best-effort company tagging semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the main parameter burden.

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 states a specific verb and resource: read the connector's append-only audit log. It enumerates the content of entries (timestamp, arguments, outcome, company tag), making the tool's purpose concrete and distinct from all sibling getters and mutation tools.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: to review what an agent actually did against the Tally company, before trusting a session's claimed results, or to hand a reviewer a record of writes. It also gives a when-not by warning this is not a full historical record beyond 90 days.

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