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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's only added context is the word 'trace'. It does not explain what an edge is, how deep the trace goes, whether results are paginated, or what an empty result means.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient but so terse that meaningful detail was omitted rather than condensed.

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 tool with no output schema and no param documentation, the description should describe what is returned and how to interpret provenance edges. As written, an agent knows only the minimum needed to guess at calling it.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden; it does clarify that evidence_id refers to an Abyar evidence ID, which the schema alone does not. It still omits format expectations and where such an ID comes from (e.g., search_evidence).

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 (trace) and resource (provenance edges) tied to an Abyar evidence ID, which distinguishes it from siblings like abiyar_get_sources or abiyar_search_evidence. However, 'provenance edges' is unexplained jargon, so an agent cannot fully picture what it retrieves.

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 gives no indication of when to use this versus alternatives such as abiyar_get_sources or abiyar_get_knowledge_cards, nor any prerequisite for obtaining the evidence_id. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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