Trace request

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

Annotations already establish the safe/idempotent/read-only profile, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the trace-field search with full-text fallback, and the shape of the result (chronological timeline, per-service steps with durations, first error). With no output schema present, disclosing the return structure is especially valuable.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited enumeration of the returned artifacts. Dense but every clause carries information; minor cost is that the enumeration makes it feel packed.

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 7-parameter, single-required-param tool with no output schema, the description covers core behavior and the return shape well. Gaps are modest: no pagination/truncation note, no statement on what happens when the trace id matches nothing, and no instance/time-range interaction guidance.

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 all 7 parameters are self-documented with defaults and formats. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g. how limit interacts with the timeline, or that streams are optional), so baseline 3 applies.

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: follows one request across services using trace fields, and specifies scope (all streams). It's clearly a trace-correlation tool rather than a generic log search, though it never names a sibling like search_logs or context_around to sharpen the contrast.

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 is implied: you need a correlation/trace id and want a cross-service timeline. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. search_logs for free-text exploration), and no prerequisites or instance-selection advice.

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