http_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the search behavior and fields searched, but does not explicitly disclose that it is read-only, has no side effects, or any other behavioral traits. Minimal disclosure beyond the purpose.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately clarifying the scope of the search. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple, with all parameters documented in the schema and an output schema exists. The description sufficiently conveys what it does, though it lacks explicit guidance on when to use it relative to siblings or notes on behavior (which are handled in other dimensions). Overall, it is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 all parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool searches past HTTP requests, with specific fields covered (URL, request body, response body). This distinguishes it from siblings like http_list (which likely lists requests) and http_replay (which replays them).

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 clearly conveys that this is a full-text search tool for past requests, implying it should be used when searching rather than listing or retrieving. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it has clear context but no exclusions.

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