Get audit records of user actions.

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the required permission ('Perm: view_audit') and briefly explains what the audit trail contains (user actions like logins, remote sessions). This provides useful context beyond annotations, though it is not exhaustive.

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 relatively short but contains a typo ('remote.') and incomplete phrasing. It is not overly verbose, but could be more polished and front-load key information.

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 complexity of 12 parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description provides basic context (permission, content type) but lacks explanation of parameter relationships (e.g., 'from' vs 'from_id', pagination options). It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are already described in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or usage guidance for individual parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get audit records of user actions', indicating the tool retrieves audit events. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'action1_audit_log_search' or 'action1_export_audit_log', which have overlapping purposes.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only additional context is the required permission 'view_audit', but no comparisons or exclusion criteria are provided.

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