audit_events_query

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('GET') and discloses error behavior when AUDIT_STREAM_URL is missing. It does not mention side effects, rate limits, or idempotency, but for a read tool with no annotations, this is adequate.

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 two front-loaded sentences that immediately convey the main function and use cases. Every sentence adds value, and there is no 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 description covers the tool's goal and return format (events array + count), but without an output schema, it lacks details about the structure of individual events, which is important for an agent to process results.

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%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds general context about filtering but does not significantly enhance parameter 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 the tool retrieves governance events from an audit-stream-py instance with filtering. It uses specific verbs ('GET', 'surface') and resource ('events'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing querying with server-side filters and returning a count.

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 provides use cases (e.g., 'surface the last N denies, attestation failures') and mentions a prerequisite (AUDIT_STREAM_URL). However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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