list_audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine context beyond that: secrets and tokens are never included in results, and directory-restricted credentials see only their own events. It does not discuss pagination behavior, though the before_id parameter hints at it in the schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the credential-scoping caveat, then the sibling redirect. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema and readOnlyHint, the description covers scope, data exclusions, and an alternative. Only the paging workflow is left implicit in the schema rather than stated.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters (limit default 50/max 200, before_id paging), so the schema carries this burden. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which meets baseline 3 without standing out.

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 ('Read the log of MCP tool calls') and enumerates the exact fields returned: tool name, credential, targets, outcome. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling list_activity, which it explicitly names and contrasts.

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?

Names the alternative (list_activity) and the condition that selects it: file-change history from every source, versus MCP tool-call history for this account. An agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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