search-spans

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions filter capabilities but fails to disclose pagination, return structure, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. For a search tool, these are critical gaps.

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 a single sentence of 11 words, which is extremely concise. Every word contributes to the purpose. There is no 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?

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return format, pagination behavior, or any side effects. For a tool with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description lists filter dimensions (service, resource, status, duration) that map to query string syntax, but the schema already includes an example. Thus, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 searches APM spans/traces for performance analysis, which differentiates it from sibling tools like search-logs or search-security-signals. However, it could be more specific about the scope (e.g., 'APM' already implied) and uses the generic verb 'Search'.

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 implies use for performance analysis via filters but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search-audit-logs, search-ci-pipelines). There is no mention of when not to use it or what prerequisites are needed.

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