athena_continuation_raw_trace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares read-only behavior, exact UTC half-open window semantics, 'already-persisted' data, and explicitly excludes higher-level analysis. This goes well beyond what the schema or annotations reveal.

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 two sentences, front-loads the primary action and scope, and every clause adds meaningful information. There is no fluff or repetition of schema fields.

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?

The description explains the input window and output record contents, which is strong given no output schema. However, it omits semantics for the optional parameters (max_records, expected_git_head) and any error/edge-case behavior, leaving some contextual gaps for a 4-parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description compensates partially by specifying the 'exact half-open UTC window' for window_start/window_end, but it does not explain max_records or expected_git_head. With 4 parameters and no schema docs, this is a notable gap.

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 clearly states the tool reads an exact half-open UTC window of persisted rehydration receipts/events and Message Board events, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It also lists concrete return contents that distinguish it from analysis-oriented sibling tools.

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 explicitly states what the tool does not do ('performs no assay classification, behavioral inference, causal attribution, or promotion'), giving clear context for when to use it for raw trace reads vs. analytic tools. It does not name alternative sibling tools, but the exclusions serve as practical usage boundaries.

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