Get Trace

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses very little. It does not say what permissions or connection are required, what happens when the trace is not found, how limit/pagination behaves (max 100), or that allowLongRange overrides a default range cap that is never stated. Only the return shape (spans plus optionally linked logs) is hinted at.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the core identifier is stated first. It is arguably over-terse for an 11-parameter tool, but the dimension rewards structure and economy, both of which are good here.

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 11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and several mutually interacting time-range parameters, the description should explain the windowing model and the default range cap implied by allowLongRange. None of that is present, so an agent is left to guess how to bound the query.

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?

Eleven parameters with 73% schema coverage and overlapping time-window options (from/to, startDate/endDate, around/window, allowLongRange). The description only implicitly touches traceId and includeLogs ('optional linked logs'); it adds no meaning for the ambiguous windowing or range-cap parameters, so it does not compensate for the moderate coverage 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 and resource: fetch spans for a given trace_id, with the useful qualifier that the id typically comes from a log line, plus optional linked logs. It distinguishes itself from the span-search siblings (slow_spans, failed_spans) by being id-scoped, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 parenthetical '(from a log line)' implies the prerequisite context for calling it, which is genuine implied usage guidance. However there is no when-not guidance, no mention of how it relates to dynatrace_slow_spans/dynatrace_failed_spans/dynatrace_logs_surrounding, and no note on which time-window mode to pick.

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