get_audit_log_artifacts

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive traits, and the description reinforces those while adding beyond them: artifacts are immutable and tamper-evident, admin API keys are required, workspace-scoped keys see only their own artifacts, and the response shape includes entries, total, page, limit, and pages. This is useful behavioral context that annotations alone do not 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 immediately informative: the first sentence states the resource, pagination, and filter nature, and the remaining sentences cover the key behavioral distinctions and auth requirements. Every sentence carries purposeful information, with no repetition or filler beyond reinforcing the read-only trait already in annotations.

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 an 11-parameter read-only query tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential operating context: pagination defaults, filter semantics, artifact immutability, auth requirements, scoping behavior, and return fields. The parameter-level details are already fully documented in the input schema, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating the filters are exact-match and by highlighting content_hash as a way to pinpoint one artifact, which is not explicit in the schema. It also summarizes pagination defaults already in the schema, so the added semantic load is moderate but meaningful.

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 names a specific verb ('Query'), a concrete resource ('the organization's immutable Parquet audit-log artifacts'), and states its core function clearly. It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling 'get_audit_logs' by calling out the live audit-event table, so an agent can distinguish the two tools without inspecting schemas.

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 says to use 'get_audit_logs' for the live audit-event table, framing the current tool as the tamper-evident artifact counterpart. It also states the admin-key requirement and workspace-scoped visibility, giving clear guidance on when this tool is appropriate and what privileges are needed.

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