get_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the content ('who changed what, when') but does not describe any limitations, pagination behavior, date range semantics, or permission requirements. For a read-only audit tool, some minimal behavioral context (e.g., 'returns most recent events first') is expected.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action ('Get the account audit/event log') and adds a useful parenthetical clarification. No unnecessary information or repetition.

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 low complexity of a simple audit log retrieval with optional pagination and date range, the description provides a reasonable but minimal overview. However, since there is no output schema, it lacks details about the return format or how to interpret the log entries, and it does not clarify ordering or default behavior beyond what the schema implies.

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 schema has 100% coverage for all four parameters (limit, offset, moment_to, moment_from), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable but does not enhance understanding.

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 retrieves the account audit/event log, specifying the resource (audit log) and the action (get). It also distinguishes from the sibling 'get_entity_audit' by focusing on account-level events, making it unambiguous.

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 implies this is for account-wide audit events, which contrasts with the entity-specific sibling 'get_entity_audit', but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or provide exclusions. A clear 'use for account-level, use get_entity_audit for entity-level' would improve this.

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