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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing output behavior: findings are either measured from real call links or inferred from timing alone, and every answer states how many traced actions were read and over what window. It also warns that too few actions means no clean bill of health, which is valuable behavioral context not present 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?

The description is dense but every sentence contributes: it front-loads the core purpose, then explains route-level output, the map view, and the measurement caveats. It could be restructured for readability, but it is not padded or 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 tool with no output schema and minimal input schema, the description provides substantial context: what findings look like, how they are measured, what the map view shows, and how to specify a route. It leaves some ambiguity around default `view` behavior and how `route` interacts with the overall analysis, but the essentials are covered.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter documentation burden. It explains `route` clearly with a recorded format example and describes the `view`:"map" variant. It does not fully enumerate all possible `view` values or specify defaults, but it compensates meaningfully for the bare schema.

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 identifies the tool as a structural diagnostic for traced app actions, enumerating concrete outputs like single points of failure, call bursts, and route neighborhoods. It differentiates itself from siblings like crash_risk or full_stack_trace by focusing on structural health and route-level analysis rather than individual symptoms.

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 for when to use the tool: when you need to understand what is structurally wrong, which route to fix first, or which routes are single points of failure. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage context is strong enough that an agent can infer the right scenario.

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