Generate a Redacted Trace Report

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

Annotations already communicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is to add context. It does so by disclosing that raw private payloads are excluded and that results are aggregate data, which is meaningful behavioral information beyond the annotations.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the core action, the data scope, and the redaction constraint without filler. Every clause contributes useful 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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description provides enough framing: verification, aggregate results, and privacy protection. The phrase 'verify the event chain' is a little underspecified operationally, but the output schema and annotations cover most remaining details.

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?

There is only one parameter and the schema provides a complete description: 'Opaque Living Stack session identifier.' The tool description adds no extra information about how session_id is interpreted or validated, but with 100% schema coverage, that is not a significant 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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'verify the event chain' and 'return aggregate event, outcome, budget, and lifecycle data.' The redacted aggregation focus helps distinguish it from siblings like trace_export, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Usage context is implied: this tool is for verification and aggregate reporting without raw private payloads. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over sibling tools such as trace_export or session_status, so the agent must infer conditions.

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