plan_investigation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals meaningful behavior: classification, vendor spellings, source mapping, and time-window widening for async ids. It stops short of explicitly stating whether any underlying source queries are executed or whether the operation is strictly read-only, leaving a small but not critical gap.

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 tight and front-loaded. The first words 'START HERE' immediately signal the primary use case, the middle sentence enumerates the tool's outputs efficiently, and the final sentence names the alternative. No filler or tautological phrasing exists.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description covers the main triggering scenario, the outputs, and the key sibling. The only notable gaps are the undocumented environment parameter and the lack of an explicit statement that the tool does not perform direct source queries, preventing a perfect score.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It richly explains the required identifier parameter with examples like 'session id, request id, trace id, or correlation id.' However, the optional environment parameter is never mentioned, so its role and accepted values remain unclear.

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 what the tool does: it classifies the identifier's shape, returns vendor spellings, names answering sources and coverage surfaces, and suggests a time window. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling correlate_ids, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

It opens with an explicit trigger condition: 'START HERE when the user hands you a bare identifier... with no logs yet.' It also gives a clear alternative path: 'Use correlate_ids instead once you already have log snippets in hand,' which is direct guidance for choosing among siblings.

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