List a site's audit history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses pagination, but that is already encoded in limit/offset, and says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, ordering, or what an empty history means.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste and the key concept (audit history) front-loaded. It is efficient, though at this length it is arguably under-specified rather than optimized.

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?

For a low-complexity three-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate, but with no annotations and no mention of read-only behavior or return shape it leaves gaps an agent must fill by inference.

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 id, limit, and offset semantics. The description's 'paginé' merely confirms the pagination parameters without adding format or defaulting detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clear verb+resource: a paginated history of audits for a site. It maps cleanly onto the tool name and title, but does not distinguish itself from siblings such as get_audit, get_audit_status, or audit_and_wait, which also concern audits.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus get_audit or get_audit_status, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance. The word 'paginé' hints at browsing many audits, but the agent must infer that itself.

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