Get Document Audit Log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description neither contradicts these nor adds behavioral context such as event ordering, included fields, or access requirements, so it adds no value beyond what annotations already provide.

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 a single sentence with no filler. For a one-parameter read-only tool, this is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value structure is not the description's responsibility. The tool is simple, well-annotated, and the description covers the basic operation. It lacks detail on what audit history includes or error behavior, but for this low-complexity tool, the coverage is adequate.

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 0%, but there is only one parameter, document_id, whose name is self-explanatory. The description's 'for a document' reinforces that the ID targets a document, but it does not add format, constraints, or requiredness beyond the schema.

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?

'Return the audit history for a document' is a clear verb+resource statement. It names the specific resource (audit history) that distinguishes it from siblings like get_document_metadata or get_document_content, though it does not elaborate on what audit history contains.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over similar get_* tools or any exclusions/alternatives. The only implied usage is the tautological 'when you need audit history,' with no context on prerequisites or edge cases.

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