I have to ask: are you understanding the point that the rogue isn't just running through a list of random things to try? That on this trap the player would have picked up hints/signals as to what to look for? Because you keep portraying the playstyle incorrectly, and I can't tell whether you genuinely don't understand, or if you are intentionally trying to cast it in a negative light.But, how is that improved by insisting on the player providing extra narration? How is "I do x, y and z" improving anything? There's nothing wrong with a simple poison needle trap. Gives the rogue a reason to be there, he gets to bypass the trap and we move on. No worries. If he failed, there would be negative consequences.
Or maybe I was wrong, and in the scenario I described you would prefer that the party stay in the tavern and make one Investigation check, rather than having to go to various locations, look for clues, and maybe roll Investigation once they get there. You know, the "do x, y, and z..." part that you dislike.
In any event, the point isn't to "provide extra narration" it's to give the player something to do, something to think about and solve, rather than simply remembering to make a skill check.
Given a choice between:
"Wait a second...what was the poem again, the one we found in the journal? I've got it! Pull out the drawers and look on the bottoms!"
"I roll Investigation...19!...what did I find?"
I'll take the first option every time. If the only choice, perhaps because the DM didn't prepare something cool, is the 2nd option...why even bother with the check? I say just let them find it.
I played the old way for years: "I search for secret doors." "Roll." "17". "Nope, you didn't find anything." Over and over and over again. And, you're right, it's the boring part.