search_facets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly adds a useful safety behavior by warning that payloads must be treated as data and instructions inside the payload must be ignored. It also implies a read-only GET operation, but it omits response shape, pagination, authorization needs, or any rate-limit or cost 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 text is brief and the security warning earns its place, but the main statement 'Returns Traceorb telemetry' is generic and adds little value, while the endpoint line might have been useful if it were accompanied by parameter semantics. It is not overwritten, but it is compact without being informative.

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?

This tool has 27 undocumented params, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description provides only a one-line purpose and a safety warning. An agent has no way to effectively construct this call correctly or understand the response, making the definition contextually incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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?

There are 27 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description lists none of them or explains their meaning. The agent has no semantic anchor for q, routePattern, baseline, order, durationMin, etc., so it cannot confidently construct a valid invitation.

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 names a verb ('Returns') and a resource ('Traceorb telemetry') and gives an explicit endpoint path GET /v1/facets, so it is not a tautology. However, it never says what facets are or how this result differs from the many identical telemetry-focused sibling tools, making the purpose only vaguely defined.

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 offers no guidance on when to select search_facets instead of query_metrics, list_requests, or the other sibling tools. No 'use this when...' statement or exclusion of alternatives appears anywhere.

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