find_errors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful context — the Jaeger-specific required service_name, the ISO 8601 time format, and the default/return shape — but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what happens when timestamps are omitted.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by compact Args and Returns sections. Every line is short and informative; the Returns section is mildly redundant given an output schema exists, but 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 four-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers all inputs and names the return type. Complete enough to call correctly; only the missing sibling routing guidance keeps it from being fully self-contained.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: all four parameters are explained (service_name required for Jaeger, start/end in ISO 8601, limit default 20). It doesn't clarify whether null start/end means unbounded or a server default, which is a minor residual 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?

States a specific verb+resource: find traces containing errors. An agent can tell it apart from get_slow_traces and search_traces by the error filter, but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus search_traces or get_trace, no mention of prerequisites or when-to-avoid conditions. The only contextual hint is that service_name is required for Jaeger, which is a backend note rather than usage guidance.

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