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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does well by explicitly stating 'no LLM cost on this call — pure DB read.' This discloses a key behavioral trait: the call is read-only and cheap. It also clarifies the output is raw trace/trajectory events, though it does not detail ordering, limits, or empty-result behavior.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. It front-loads the most valuable behavioral note (no LLM cost, pure DB read), then gives usage context, purpose, and addressing semantics without wasting words.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool, the description covers what the tool returns, when to use it, and how to identify the target agent. There is no output schema, but 'raw trace / trajectory events' conveys the return shape reasonably. Missing minor details like behavior when both or neither XOR parameter is supplied are acceptable for a read-only inspection 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters already include detailed descriptions including the XOR constraint. The tool description restates the XOR relationship but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving raw trace/trajectory events for an Aurora agent, which is a specific resource and output type. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_agent by emphasizing 'raw trace / trajectory events' rather than general agent metadata.

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 explicitly states it is 'only relevant when inspecting an Aurora agent run,' giving clear context for when this tool should be used. It does not name alternative sibling tools, but the usage boundary is clear enough that an agent can infer it is not for general agent listing or management.

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