get_full_trace

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that it returns all spans and timing information, and that it covers the full request flow across services. No contradictions with annotations, but it doesn't disclose error behavior or limits beyond the schema.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, the second gives usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with a single parameter, full schema coverage, safe annotations, and an output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, usage context, and input origin. It doesn't need to explain return values since an output schema exists, and the tool's scope is clear for its complexity.

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 the schema already fully documents the trace_id parameter. The description's mention of 'after finding a trace ID' reinforces the schema wording, but adds no new syntax or detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool's function: 'Get complete trace with all spans and timing information.' This specifies a verb ('get'), a resource ('full trace'), and the scope ('all spans and timing information'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_apm_traces or get_log_details.

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 provides an explicit usage context: 'Use this when: need to see full request flow across services (after finding a trace ID).' This indicates the prerequisite of having a trace ID and the intended scenario, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it.

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