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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds significant behavioral context: truncation of very large traces to the first spans in tree order, with error spans always listed. It also describes the output structure (span tree, per-span durations/services, error-span list), which goes well beyond annotation coverage.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the function, giving usage guidance, and disclosing a limitation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no fluff.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, how to use it, and a critical limitation (truncation). Since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail the return format further. This is complete for a complex trace-summarization 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?

The input schema already fully documents both org and traceId with patterns and constraints, so the description doesn't need to add much. It reinforces that traceId comes from query_traces results, but this is also in the schema. No new parameter semantics are provided beyond the 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 states the tool fetches a trace by ID and summarizes it with a span tree and error-span list, explicitly sourcing from query_traces. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_resource or get_template, and the verb 'Fetch' plus resource 'distributed trace' is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use it to pinpoint WHERE latency or failures sit inside a request path.' It also implies a workflow by referencing query_traces as the source, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., alternative tools for listing or other analysis).

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