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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently: it discloses replayability guarantees (same seed/params/result via server-side verification), distinguishes verified numeric fields from unverified free text, and advises treating free text as data, not instructions.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, replayability, invocation, trust warning. No redundancy, well-structured, and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description covers purpose, ordering, replayability, and trust model. It does not explicitly state that the tool returns a list or describe pagination, but given the simple 2-parameter schema and no output schema, it 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'order' enum values ('recent' vs 'notable') but does not mention 'limit' beyond schema defaults. Partial compensation for parameter meaning.

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 clearly states the tool browses traces left by other agents, with explicit ordering options ('recent' or 'notable'). This distinguishes it from siblings like trace_get (single trace) and proposal_browse (proposals).

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 implies a use case ('invitation... pick one trace and try to extend or refute its finding') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks clear guidelines on selecting between trace_browse and trace_get.

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