migration_listAuditEntries

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It compensates for the missing output schema by listing return fields (operatorId, timestamp, operationType) and implies read-only behavior via 'Query'. However, it omits pagination behavior, authorization requirements, and the return structure (array vs object).

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 appropriately concise with three sentences. It is front-loaded with the action, documents outputs in the second sentence, and mentions filtering in the third. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the filter mention creates slight ambiguity given the empty schema.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately compensates by documenting return fields. However, it should explicitly differentiate from history_listUserOperations and clarify whether the mentioned filters are query parameters (despite empty schema) or conceptual constraints. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps for a complex BPM domain 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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (trivially), the baseline score of 4 applies. The description mentions 'Filters: processDefinitionKey, date range' which confusingly implies parameters that do not exist in the empty input schema, though this could be interpreted as behavioral context rather than input documentation.

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 uses specific verbs ('Query') and identifies the resource ('Operaton user operation log') and scope ('migration audit entries'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling history_listUserOperations by specifying 'migration' audit entries, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

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 states what the tool returns but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling history_listUserOperations, or versus other migration tools like migration_listBatches. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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