search_apm_traces

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, so description adds meaningful context: pagination, raw span retrieval (vs aggregates), and query syntax quirks. It doesn't overwhelm with irrelevant details, but stops short of disclosing any edge-case behaviors like rate limits.

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; it states the core purpose, then quick usage criteria, alternative, and examples. No wasted sentences, and examples are scannable.

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 rich annotations, a complete input schema, and an output schema present, the description fully covers when and how to use the tool, including alternative paths. Nothing crucially missing for a read-only search tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces query syntax through examples but adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already 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?

Description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Search distributed traces and spans for performance analysis (paginated).' It clearly differentiates from siblings by mentioning aggregate_spans for statistics, and the name itself is descriptive.

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?

Explicit 'Use this when' list and a direct alternative recommendation ('use aggregate_spans instead') with reasoning. Common query examples further clarify when this tool fits.

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