audit_export

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the log records every PHI read/write, which adds context. However, it does not describe the export format, whether the operation has side effects (e.g., file generation), response structure, or any rate limits. This is a moderate disclosure but leaves important gaps.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds useful information: what the log contains, filtering options, and pagination support. No wasted words or 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?

This is an export tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema. The description explains the log content and filtering/pagination, but it does not specify the output format (e.g., JSON, CSV, file download) or the response structure. Since the output schema is absent, the description should have provided more detail on return values to be fully complete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds value by grouping parameters (date range, patient filter, pagination) and clarifying their purpose, but it does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema is complete; the grouping is a slight enhancement but not enough to warrant a 4.

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 states a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('the local HIPAA §164.312(b) audit log'), and clarifies what the log contains ('Every read and write of PHI is recorded here'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools, which are mostly list/get operations for other entities (notes, invoices, clients, etc.).

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 clear usage context: it tells users to filter by date range using date_from/date_to and by patient using client_id, and mentions pagination via limit/offset. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, but the tool is sufficiently unique that usage intent is clear.

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