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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it exposes person-level PII, names individuals, and requires person-level access to be turned on. This is useful for an agent assessing privacy and permission implications, though it does not detail failure behavior.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: one defines the content and row structure, one gives the audit use case, one warns about the person-level access prerequisite. The most distinctive element (audit trail) is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately describes the output shape: one row per person per campaign with key fields. It also covers the main precondition. Minor gaps remain around ordering, pagination, or behavior when person-level access is off, but for a single-optional-parameter tool the description is largely complete.

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 the single `range` parameter, including its enum values, default, and meaning relative to campaign launch date. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the schema carries the burden; the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific resource ('evidence bundle' / ISO 27001 A.6.3 audit trail) and a concrete shape: one row per person per campaign with email, department, language, and interaction timestamps. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_breakdowns or get_campaign by positioning it as the auditor-facing export.

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 clear context: this is the export an auditor asks for, and it names individuals, so person-level access must be enabled. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the audit-evidence framing and prerequisite provide strong situational guidance.

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