Get an audit record by its ID

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description contributes the required permission scope (view_audit), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about behavior on a missing/invalid ID or about scope of the returned record.

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 of the three sentences say the same thing almost verbatim ('Get an audit record by its ID' / 'Get a specific audit record by its ID'), which is pure redundancy in an otherwise tiny description. The permission note earns its place; the duplicate sentence does not.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing for a lookup tool is not-found/error behavior and any hint about the verbose or response_format options, leaving the definition minimally adequate.

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 id, verbose and response_format parameters are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description only restates that lookup is by ID and adds nothing about what 'verbose' (skip per-item compactor) means in practice or how the enum format choice affects output.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get an audit record by its ID'), which is unambiguous about the operation. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like action1_list_audit_events or action1_audit_log_search, so an agent must infer that this is single-record retrieval versus listing/searching.

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?

No guidance on when to use this instead of action1_list_audit_events or action1_audit_log_search. The only added context is the permission requirement ('Perm: view_audit'), which tells the agent about authorization but not about tool selection.

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