search_by_trace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions searching logs but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid trace IDs. The description is functional but lacks operational context.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and every element 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 search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does but lacks information about return format, result structure, or error handling. Without annotations, it should provide more operational context for a tool that presumably returns log data.

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%, providing complete parameter documentation. The description doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema already explains about environment options, trace ID purpose, or size default. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Search logs'), resource ('by OpenTelemetry trace ID'), and purpose ('to see all logs related to a specific request/transaction'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search_by_field', 'search_by_service', and 'search_logs' by specifying the unique trace-based search method.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'request/transaction' tracing, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_by_field' or 'search_logs'. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided, leaving the agent to infer appropriate scenarios.

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