get_access_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are partly covered, and the description reinforces locality and adds the ordering convention (most recent last). It does not disclose that results are truncated (the schema's limit defaults to 50), which conflicts subtly with "every time," nor what fields each record contains.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and the ordering note appended where it belongs. Nothing is redundant, though the "every time Epic MCP fetched health data" phrasing is slightly heavy for the payload.

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 simple read-only, zero-required-parameter tool with no output schema, most of the essentials are present. The gap is that "every time" implies a complete log while an undocumented default limit of 50 truncates it, leaving an agent unclear on result volume and record shape.

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% for the single `limit` parameter, so the description must compensate and it does not — the parameter is never mentioned, nor its default of 50 or whether it caps returned entries. Only the record ordering is clarified, which touches the schema's ordering implication but not the parameter itself.

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?

"Show the local record of every time Epic MCP fetched health data" gives a specific verb (show) and a specific resource (the access/audit log of data fetches). It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_patient or get_medications, which return clinical data rather than an audit trail, though it never names a sibling to route against.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The word "local" hints at scope, but an agent must infer that this is for auditing/inspecting past fetches rather than retrieving patient data.

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