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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description adds genuinely new behavior: it operates offline, omits query/userinfo and sensitive headers, warns timings do not establish cause, and flags returned evidence as untrusted data rather than instructions. That last point is a real prompt-injection guard the annotations cannot express.

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, each carrying distinct payload: input shape, return shape, then constraints and safety caveats. Front-loaded with what the tool does before the caveats, with no filler.

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 no output schema, the description takes responsibility for returns and does so ('sanitized request indices, status counts, redirect/error/timing observations and admin next steps'). Combined with the input constraints and safety caveats, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does name every meaningful field and the 100-entry maximum. It stops short of per-field semantics (e.g. status interpretation, durationMs units), but the field names are largely self-describing.

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 — analyze HTTP capture entries — and enumerates the exact input fields (method/url/status/durationMs/responseHeaders) plus the 100-entry cap. The HTTP-capture scope cleanly separates it from the log/config siblings (parse_logs, summarize_logs, validate_config).

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?

It gives boundary conditions ('Offline; never fetches URLs') that imply the tool works only on already-captured data, but it never states when to pick this over parse_logs or the other siblings, nor any prerequisite for having entries in hand. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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