search-spans

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes behavior as searching spans/traces, covering query syntax and return of individual spans with trace IDs. It lacks details on authentication, error handling, or rate limits, but for a search tool the description is adequate.

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 concise and well-structured, with front-loaded purpose and no redundant information.

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?

Given no output schema, description covers return format (spans with trace IDs) and query syntax. Lacks explanation of pagination behavior despite page parameter existing. Overall sufficient for a search 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 coverage is 50% (actually high with many descriptions). The description adds value with a query syntax example and usage context. However, it does not explain all parameters beyond what the schema already provides; baseline is 3 due to high 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 clearly states 'Search APM spans/traces' and provides concrete examples like 'find slow requests', 'show errors in payment service', or investigating latency. It also distinguishes from sibling tool get-trace by directing users to get-trace for full trace context.

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?

Explicitly states use cases for the tool and mentions get-trace as alternative for full trace context. However, it does not exhaustively cover when not to use this tool or list all alternatives among many sibling search tools.

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