get_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and usefully discloses that the tool is read-only, returns no secrets, and does not control order flow. It also states default and maximum result sizes. It does not mention permissions, ordering, or retention behavior, but the core safety profile is clear.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted text. The main purpose and row limits are front-loaded, followed by the safety scope.

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 tool has an output schema and fully described parameters, so the description need not explain return values. It covers the key scope, safety, and size constraints. Minor gaps around ordering or time range are acceptable given the structured schema.

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 limit, account, and category. The description repeats the default and max limit but adds no additional meaning for account or category beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb and resource: return recent control-plane audit entries. It also gives default and max row counts, making the operation concrete. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the control-plane scope helps distinguish it from order-flow tools.

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 implies this is for audit inspection and clarifies it is read-only with no secrets or order-flow control. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus related tools such as get_trading or list_orders, nor does it state exclusions beyond the control-plane scope.

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