Trace a correlation id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: it discloses that results are a compact timeline, that each JSON log line is parsed down to structured fields, and that it aggregates across every service that logged the id. It does not mention potential limitations like pagination or index coverage, but it gives a clear behavioral model of a read-only log correlation query.

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 with no wordiness: the first states the core action and output, the second gives a direct comparison that helps selection. The key routing guidance is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core behavior, the return shape, and the main alternative. It does not describe edge-case behavior or auth/rate concerns, but the schema already documents parameters and defaults, so the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds some semantic color by listing common correlation-id forms (sessionId, transactionId, x-request-id, MSISDN) and the extracted output fields, but it does not explain the size, indeex, or window parameters beyond what the schema already clearly states.

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 states a specific verb ('Follow') and a precise resource (one correlation id across services), and it names the output form: a compact timeline. It explicitly distinguishes itself from es_search by explaining that it parses log lines to time/pod/level/action/detail rather than returning whole documents.

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 directly tells the agent when to choose this tool: 'Prefer this over es_search for what happened to this request.' This is an explicit routing instruction naming the alternative and the condition that selects the trace tool instead of a raw search.

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