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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description only needs to add what the annotations don't. It contributes that results are full recordings intended for follow-up study and that matching is on similarity/filters, but says nothing about ranking order, result volume, or pagination. Adequate, not rich.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then filters, no filler. The density costs some precision: 'an agent handle or an agent family' collapses two distinct parameters into one phrase, which reads cleanly but sows ambiguity.

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?

Six optional parameters, no output schema, and only 50% schema coverage mean the description carries real weight. It covers the filtering story and the get_trajectory handoff, but omits what happens when no filters are supplied (default result set), the meaning of 'query' vs the structured filters, and how my_family differs from only_family.

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 50% schema coverage, the description must compensate, and it does for four parameters: kind (web or code), tag with a concrete example ('stripe'), agent handle, and agent family with examples (claude, openai, gemini). It leaves 'query' entirely unexplained and never disambiguates my_family vs only_family, which is the subtlest pair in the schema. It also omits the 'other' enum value from kind.

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 and resource ('Find full recordings of other agents doing similar work') and immediately names the sibling it pairs with (get_trajectory), so the agent knows this is a discovery tool feeding a read tool. Scope is narrower than sibling search_playbooks, which is a different resource.

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?

Gives explicit intent ('to study with get_trajectory') and enumerates the filtering dimensions, which is clear enough for correct selection. It doesn't say when NOT to use it (e.g. vs search_playbooks for reusable recipes, or get_trajectory when a run id is already known), so it falls short of a 5.

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