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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses limits (up to 1000), window derivation rules, behavior when trace is unknown (spans/exemplars empty but logs returned), verbose flattening and string capping, and the traceUrl as shareable evidence. No contradictions exist.

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 lengthy but well-structured with clear sections (summary, return list, usage, caveats). Every sentence adds necessary information for a complex tool. Slight redundancy remains (return list repeated), but overall it is appropriately detailed without fluff; front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly covers return fields, limits, edge cases, and behavioral nuances. It explains window derivation, empty-trace handling, and provides operational guidance (e.g., large verbose responses). This is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds meaningful context beyond schema: explains verbose's effect on return structure (flattens attributes, adds resource object), how maxStringChars controls truncation, and the practical advice to prefer verbose=false first. This enhances parameter understanding beyond the schema description.

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 starts with 'One-shot cross-signal pivot for a trace id' and explains it returns trace summary, spans, logs, and exemplars for a given traceId. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like run_sql and logs by stating 'Use this as the primary entry point' and explicitly lists when to use alternatives.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('primary entry point when you have a trace id and want to see all correlated signals at once'), when-not-to-use ('for error triage, the logs tool ... is a cheaper, targeted alternative'), and names alternatives (run_sql for raw columns, logs, spans, metrics). It also advises on verbose=false first for long-lived traces.

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