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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: newest-first ordering, a fixed 50-per-page size, truncated question/answer fields, and the paging cursor contract. It stops short of noting any rate limits or result caps, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource and return shape, then filters and paging. Every clause adds information; there is no filler or repetition of structured fields.

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 usefully sketches the returned record fields, paging, and the natural follow-up tool. It omits nothing critical for invocation, though the workspace-scoping caveat is left entirely to the schema.

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 every parameter including `before`, `day`, `tool`, and `document` is already documented. The description reinforces the filter semantics and the paging cursor, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema carries, so 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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (the traces behind a point on a source's chart) and even enumerates what each record contains (question/answer, tools, time, tokens, cost, status). It clearly distinguishes itself from caliper_traces_get, which it names for single-record retrieval.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent how to narrow the list (day, tool, document, failures), how to page (`before` with the nextBefore from the last page), and routes to caliper_traces_get for opening one. Nothing about when to use vs. the sibling is left to inference.

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