List audit events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavioral context on top: results are newest-first, the scope is the credential's workspace, and occurred_after bounds the entire read window. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or the cross-account header's effect, but those are covered elsewhere.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the single most important calling constraint. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only, paginated list tool with 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and readOnlyHint annotations, this is nearly complete. The remaining gaps (pagination interaction with the window, cross-account scoping nuance) are documented in the schema rather than the description, which is acceptable.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds relational meaning the schema cannot convey: occurred_after defines the read window rather than just another predicate, and every other filter is subordinate to it. That is meaningful semantics beyond the per-field text.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (audit trail) plus scope (the workspace the credential resolves to), and it enumerates the semantic content of a record ('who did what, to which resource, and what changed'). This clearly separates it from adjacent read tools like list_incident_events or list_operations.

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?

It states the operational constraint that occurred_after is required and that all other filters narrow within that window, which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never says when to reach for this tool versus a sibling such as list_incident_events, nor does it describe limits or exclusions beyond the required window.

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