Get tracing setup steps

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by naming the required scope and disclosing credential handling (the tracing key the user creates on the Connect page). It stops short of describing failure modes or rate limits.

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-loads the permission requirement, then purpose, then return shape; every sentence carries information and nothing is padded. It is a single dense paragraph, so scannability is slightly reduced 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by spelling out the returned blocks and their fields (`files`, `key_line`, `bang_script`/`bang_command`), so an agent knows exactly what it will get. Combined with the stated prerequisite and tool-targeting behavior, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented (including the 'Omitted: every block' behavior for `tool`), which sets the baseline at 3. The description's detail about `prompt`, `key_line` and `bang_script` describes return fields rather than adding parameter semantics.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Returns the steps that make a tool send OpenTelemetry traces to one monitor,' then enumerates the content (what to write and where, how to verify, limits). This is clearly distinguishable from adjacent tools like get_ping_instructions or get_trace_diagnostics without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit usage context ('For setting up tracing, observability or telemetry') and a prerequisite ('Requires the read scope or higher'), which tells the agent when this tool applies. It does not name an alternative or state when-not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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