get_execution_audit_trail

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

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Consulter' implies a read-only operation and 'infalsifiable (hash-chain)' usefully signals immutability, but nothing is said about access permissions, whether audit reads are themselves logged, ordering/pagination of entries, or what the trail 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?

One front-loaded sentence with the resource and its key property early; the trailing 'pour la gouvernance et le contrôle' is somewhat filler and, being untranslated while siblings are English, slightly hurts skimmability, but there is no verbosity.

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 one-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description should indicate what the trail returns (entries, hash linkage, timestamps) and it does not; the relationship to verify_evidence_chain is also unaddressed.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines contract_id. The description adds no meaning about identifier format, accepted source of the ID, or behavior for unknown IDs, leaving it at the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: consult the tamper-proof hash-chain audit trail of an execution contract. The hash-chain/immutability qualifier makes it recognizable, but the description never differentiates it from the adjacent sibling verify_evidence_chain, which plausibly overlaps.

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 trailing phrase 'pour la gouvernance et le contrôle' gestures at a purpose but gives no when-to-use condition, no prerequisite (e.g., an authenticated caller or an existing contract), and no guidance on choosing this over verify_evidence_chain or audit_submission_checklist.

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