export_otel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds the bulk-export behavior when trace_id is omitted, but says nothing about size limits, streaming, or what happens with an unknown trace_id.

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 compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the omit-trace_id rule stated before the example. The example is mildly redundant given the schema's enum and could be trimmed, but it is not wasteful.

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 simple two-parameter export with a single supported format, the description covers purpose, the optional-filter behavior, and the wire format. With no output schema, it would ideally mention the shape of the exported payload, but the OTLP JSON mention largely covers that.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the enum on format is self-explanatory. The description's example reinforces usage but adds no format semantics beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (export) and resource (traces) plus the output serialization format (OpenTelemetry OTLP JSON span format), which is far more informative than the title. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like export_compliance_log or export_dashboard.

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 gives one useful scoping rule — omit trace_id to export all traces — which is genuine when-to-use guidance for parameter selection. It offers no guidance about when to prefer this tool over the other export_* siblings or any prerequisites.

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