End-to-end transaction

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses that results are time-ordered and include request, dependency, exception, and trace data across services. This gives an accurate picture of the call result without an output schema, and there is no contradiction with the annotations.

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?

Two information-dense sentences with zero waste. The core result is front-loaded, and the cross-reference to the failures tool is placed at the end.

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 read-only trace tool with no output schema, the description enumerates what will be returned and in what order, while the schema and annotations handle parameters and side effects. An agent has enough context to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 schema already covers all three parameters with 100% description coverage. The description adds real value by pointing to azure_appinsights_failures.sampleOperationId and clarifying that operationId is the trace key.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Shows') with a precise resource ('everything recorded for one operation ID'), enumerates content and ordering, and notes cross-service scope. This clearly differentiates it from service-specific log tools like azure_appservice_logs and azure_containerapp_logs.

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 establishes the use case: trace one operation end-to-end across services, and tells agents where to obtain valid operation IDs. It stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it or naming the alternative for single-service logs.

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