trace

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, closed-world). The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it discloses that the tool resolves downward to evidence notes and public sources, i.e. it performs provenance traversal rather than a flat lookup. It stops short of describing depth, limits, or output shape, so it is not a 5.

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 sentences, zero filler. The what-it-does sentence leads and the when-to-use sentence follows, so the purpose is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the input format and the nature of the returned material (evidence notes, public sources). What is missing is any sense of result granularity or pagination, but nothing essential to correct invocation is absent.

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 coverage is 0% and item_id has no description in the schema, so the description carries the full burden. It compensates well by specifying the accepted ID formats (P## for principles, MHJ-CL-### for claims), which is precisely the semantic an agent needs to form a valid argument.

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?

Specific verb ('Trace') plus the exact resources it operates on ('a principle (P##) or claim (MHJ-CL-###)') and their target ('evidence notes and public sources'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_principle and search_evidence, which retrieve rather than resolve provenance.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use when the user asks why a recommendation holds or where it comes from.' That is a clear use context, but it does not contrast against alternatives such as get_principle or search_evidence, which an agent might otherwise reach for first.

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