search_traces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it falls short: it does not say whether this is read-only, whether pagination or result caps apply beyond `limit`, what ordering results come in, or what happens when 100+ traces match. The 'Returns: JSON string with trace summaries' line is the only behavioral disclosure.

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 Args/Returns layout is front-loaded and scannable, with no filler prose. It is slightly long only because it is compensating for a completely undescribed schema, which is justified.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain the return shape — the brief Returns line suffices. What is missing for an 8-parameter search tool with zero annotation coverage is any behavioral or routing context, so the definition is adequate but leaves real gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it documents every one of the 8 parameters, gives ISO 8601 format for timestamps, milliseconds units for durations, the Jaeger-specific requiredness of service_name, and the default/max for limit. It loses a point for not clarifying whether min/max_duration and start/end pairs are inclusive or how they interact.

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 and resource ('Search for traces') plus the scoping mechanism ('with filters'), so the core purpose is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like find_errors or get_slow_traces, which are also filtered trace queries, so an agent gets no help disambiguating.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all — no conditions, no exclusions, and no mention of the alternatives (get_trace, find_errors, get_slow_traces) that overlap heavily with this tool. The one contextual note ('required for Jaeger') is a backend quirk, not usage routing.

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