read_minutes_audit_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds value by specifying the event fields (시각, note_id, write_mode, 변경 줄 수, 내용 해시) and that results are ordered 최신순. This is consistent with annotations; no contradiction.

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 compact, with a purpose statement first, then a use-case line, then structured Args and Returns sections. No wasted words. It loses one point because it could be even more terse (e.g., merging the first two sentences) and the Args/Returns formatting is a bit verbose but acceptable.

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 is a simple read operation with an output schema provided. The description covers the purpose, use case, parameter semantics, and return type (AuditResponse with events[]). Given the readOnlyHint and output schema, nothing else is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly. Complete for its complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters already have clear descriptions in the schema (limit: '최신순 최대 건수', note_id: '특정 메모로 필터링. 생략하면 전체.'). The description essentially repeats these, adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 a clear verb (조회합니다) and a specific resource (회의록 저장 감사 로그) with ordering (최신순). It also names the exact use case (AWAITING_APPROVAL → SAVED 흐름의 실행 증거 제출), which distinguishes this from any sibling tool that might list minutes but not audit logs.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'AWAITING_APPROVAL → SAVED 흐름의 실행 증거를 제출할 때 사용합니다.' This gives clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the use case is narrow enough to prevent misuse. A 4 is appropriate because it lacks exclusion guidance but provides solid context.

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