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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses span ordering, parentSpanId for tree rebuilding, summary fields, default vs verbose behavior, string capping, and the shareable traceUrl. It also explains how to use traceUrl as evidence, adding actionable context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides usage guidance and behavioral details. Every sentence contributes distinct information; no filler or repetition. The length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it specifies return fields, ordering, default behavior, verbose options, and when to use alternatives. It fully compensates for missing structured metadata.

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%, but the description adds value beyond the schema: it details that verbose includes 'attributes (flattened in, plus a `resource` object)' and notes that long string values are capped. This enriches parameter understanding.

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: 'Return every span in a single trace (up to 10000), plus a trace summary.' It clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from the sibling 'correlate' by noting it returns only spans without logs/exemplars.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Prefer correlate when investigating a trace... Use get_trace only when you need the span tree alone and want to skip the log/exemplar lookup.' This names the preferred alternative and specifies when to choose this tool instead.

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