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

Annotations already establish the safe read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond that: body encoding rules (UTF-8 text or base64), the byte-exact curl/fetch recipe produced by replay_to, and a security warning to treat contents as untrusted input.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler. The core return contract is front-loaded, the optional replay behavior follows, and the safety warning closes it out — every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, yet the description still summarizes them helpfully. With annotations covering safety and full schema coverage on inputs, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning for replay_to — it explains that it yields a byte-exact curl command and fetch recipe for targets Porch cannot reach. The remaining parameters are left to the schema, which is adequate but no bonus.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full details of one captured request') and enumerates exactly what is returned: method, path, parsed query, headers, body encoding, and json/form parsing. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_requests, which enumerates rather than returns full detail for a single request.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance for the optional replay_to path: use it when the target is somewhere Porch cannot reach, with 'localhost' as a concrete example. It does not explicitly state when to prefer get_request over list_requests, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives coverage.

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