trace_claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully enumerates the chain stages and implies a read-style trace operation, but it does not state whether the tool has side effects, how results are returned, whether the chain is guaranteed complete, or what happens when evidence is missing.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that packs in the operation, the resource, and the expected chain components without filler. Every part earns its place.

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 tool, the description conveys the essential purpose. However, with no output schema and no annotation context, an agent still lacks information about return format, error behavior, and how this tool relates to overlapping siblings, so the context is adequate but not complete.

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%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds little beyond labeling the operation as claim-based tracing; entity_id remains only 'Optional entity ID' with no explanation of how it disambiguates or affects the trace.

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 uses a specific verb ('Trace') and resource ('claim'), and it defines the output scope as a provenance chain through Evidence, Source, URL, Timestamp, and Hash. This is clearly distinct from a generic search or entity lookup, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools such as verify_claim.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need the complete provenance chain for a claim. However, the description does not state when to prefer this over siblings like verify_claim, find_evidence, or get_evidence_packet, and it provides no explicit exclusions or alternative conditions.

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