scout_search

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses comprehensive scope and OR logic, but omits behavioral traits like side effects (read-only vs. mutation), performance implications, or output format. With an output schema available, this is minimally adequate.

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 sentences efficiently conveying purpose and key feature. No wasted words; front-loaded with core verb and resource. Ideal conciseness.

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?

For a simple search tool with two parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description covers primary functionality. It could mention case sensitivity or partial matching, but given low complexity and existing schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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% with descriptions for both parameters (keyword and tab). The description's additional note about comma-separated OR search merely echoes the schema's keyword description, adding no new semantic value. Baseline 3 applies.

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 'Search for data by keyword across ALL captured network data.' The verb 'Search' and resource 'network data' are specific, and the scope 'ALL' distinguishes it from specialized sibling tools like scout_cookies or scout_apis.

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?

Implicitly clear: use for general keyword search across all data. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives like scout_cookies for cookie-specific search, the context of sibling tools provides enough differentiation for a clear use case.

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