tracearr_get_user

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the operation safe, and the description adds the conceptual output ('correlation block') without contradicting the annotation. However, it does not disclose edge-case behaviors such as behavior for invalid or unknown IDs, which would be useful beyond the annotation.

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 concise sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb 'Resolve' and the key object. Every word adds value, making it an example of efficient writing.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. The tool is simple (read-only, one parameter), and the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and input semantics. It could mention not-found behavior, but that is not essential given the straightforward nature of the tool.

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 provides only a string 'id' with no description, but the description explicitly calls it a 'Tracearr identity id', adding domain meaning and telling the agent the expected semantic. It does not specify format or source, but given a single parameter, this is adequate compensation for the 0% schema coverage.

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 ('Resolve') and clearly identifies the resource ('Tracearr identity id to its correlation block'), with a parenthetical explaining what a correlation block is. This distinguishes the tool from siblings like tracearr_get_user_history and tracearr_get_user_stats by focusing on correlation-block resolution.

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 implies the use case: when you have a Tracearr identity id and need its correlation block, use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose statement is sufficiently clear for an agent to infer the appropriate context relative to sibling tools.

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