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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: the returned record contains input, result payload, status, per-step receipts, and timing; it is owner-scoped so only the caller's own traces resolve; and it mandates that quoted numbers must come from this read. This adds real context beyond the annotations.

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 longer than average but front-loads the core purpose and packs in high-value usage, scope, and grounding instructions. Each clause earns its place, though the imperative tone and repeated 'never' phrasing could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 read-one-by-id tool with strong annotations, the description is complete: it states what is returned, when to use it, the ownership constraint, and how it relates to putting the trace on screen via ui_navigate. No output schema exists, but the listed return fields (input, result payload, status, per-step receipts, timing) give the agent enough to ground its answers.

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, but the description adds meaningful parameter context: 'Owner-scoped: only the caller's own traces resolve' clarifies that wallet_address must be the caller's own wallet, and 'by id' reinforces the id parameter's role. This goes slightly beyond the schema's bare field descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'READ one trace's FULL record' and enumerates exactly what is included (input, result payload, status, per-step receipts, timing). It also distinguishes itself from search-like siblings by emphasizing retrieval 'by id' of a single full trace, so an agent can tell it apart from trace_search without opening the schema.

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 explicit when-to-use triggers: whenever the user names or pastes a trace id, or asks what a run/step produced, returned, broke on, or means. It also gives strong exclusion guidance ('never analyze a trace from memory or from what's on screen'), though it does not explicitly name a search alternative or state when NOT to use this tool beyond lacking an id.

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