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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description mainly adds value by confirming read-only behavior ('Read-only') and specifying required auth scope (trace:read). It also discloses that response metadata includes next_cursor for paging but excludes bodies. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three well-structured sentences: one for what it does (filters, order, return fields), one for use cases, one for auth. Efficient and front-loaded. Slight redundancy in mentioning 'newest first' followed by cursor paging, but not problematic.

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?

Covers core functionality, pagination, what's excluded, and auth. No output schema exists, so description rightly explains return fields. Lacks explicit mention of default sort or cursor lifetime, but overall complete for a search tool.

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 describes all 8 parameters with coverage 100%. The description adds no new parameter semantics but succinctly summarizes filter dimensions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already does the job.

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 it queries Kamy Trace records, explicitly lists filter dimensions (feature, status, provider, tag, time window), specifies ordering (newest first), and differentiates it from sibling tools like trace_record (individual record) and scan_tool_description by focusing on search and filtering.

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 example questions ('how many flagged calls last week?') and a practical use case ('locate a specific record id before opening it in the dashboard'). Clearly states what it does not return (stored prompt and output bodies), guiding agents away from misuse.

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