get_audit_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the response includes a 'verified' boolean indicating chain integrity and notes that broken rows may be present. However, it omits other behavioral details such as pagination, default limits, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only, which would be expected for a query tool.

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, tightly worded sentence (in Turkish) that immediately conveys the core functionality and key output flag. No wasted words; it 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?

Given the 3 unannotated parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the 'verified' flag but leaves out parameter semantics, response structure, and any usage caveats. A more thorough description is needed for a tool with this 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?

The input schema has 3 parameters with 0% coverage (no descriptions), and the tool description does not explain any of them. The meaning of 'limit', 'request_id', and 'idempotency_key' is entirely absent, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of 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 clearly states the tool queries an audit log with hash-chain verification, using a specific verb ('query') and a specific resource ('audit log'). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning hash-chain verification, but does not explicitly contrast it with other log-related tools, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The intended usage is only implicit from the tool name and simple description.

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