search_trace_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the search is case-insensitive, and that it can target inputs, outputs, or both via the search_in parameter. However, it does not mention pagination, return format, auth requirements, or rate limits, leaving the agent with incomplete behavioral expectations. It provides some transparency but not enough to fully anticipate the tool's 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 compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose in the first sentence, gives examples in the second, and then lists parameter explanations. Every sentence serves a purpose, with 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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters and no annotations, the description adequately covers the core usage pattern but omits explanations for many optional filters. Since an output schema exists, return value documentation is not required, but the lack of guidance on limit, tags, and date ranges means an agent may not exploit the full capability. It's a well-structured but incomplete description.

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 description adds meaning for three key parameters (domain, search_in, query) with explicit explanations and examples. However, with schema description coverage at 0%, it leaves six other parameters (tags, limit, project, start_date, end_date, time_range) undocumented, forcing the agent to rely on parameter names and defaults. This partial coverage raises it above baseline but still leaves significant gaps.

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 opens with a clear statement ('Search trace inputs and outputs for keywords') and provides three concrete example questions. This verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like fetch_traces or analyze_sessions, whose purposes are different. The examples reinforce the intent.

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 says 'Use this to answer:' followed by specific use cases, giving clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion cases, but the examples make the intended usage obvious. This earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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