Read engagement audit events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the permission requirement (audit:read) and the recency of events, which is useful context, but does not elaborate on pagination or ordering. It contributes some value beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 a single sentence that immediately conveys the action and key condition, with no superfluous content. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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, simple parameter set (2 params, 1 required), and annotations covering safety, the description provides the essential condition and scope. It lacks explicit parameter clarification but is otherwise sufficient for a straightforward read tool.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the engagement_id or limit parameters. Engagement_id is implied by 'when the engagement' but not explicitly described, and limit is entirely unmentioned. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving parameter semantics weak.

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 ('Return recent audit events') and the resource ('audit events'), and the condition 'when the engagement includes audit:read' distinguishes it from siblings like verify_audit_chain. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 a clear usage condition: use the tool when the engagement has audit:read permission. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the conditional context is strong, and sibling differentiation is implicit in the distinctive action/resource.

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