search

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the search scope (all captured calls, specific fields), the return mode (compact summaries with action_id vs full bodies when include_messages is true), and references to 'explain' for deeper inspection. This is useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

The description is two sentences: the first states what the tool does, the second gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains 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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description provides enough to understand what the tool does, what it searches, and what results look like (compact summaries with action_id). It could mention sorting/pagination, but the limit parameter covers one aspect. Overall, it is complete for a search tool.

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 covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself does not add much parameter-specific meaning—it only reinforces the purpose. The 'include_messages' behavior is described in the schema, not the main description.

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?

The description clearly identifies the verb and resource: 'Full-text search across all captured LLM calls.' It enumerates the searched fields (prompts, outputs, system prompts, agent names, user IDs), which differentiates it from sibling tools that handle sessions or runs.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Use this to find calls related to a topic, error, or agent.' It also hints at an alternative for drill-in ('to drill in via explain') without naming the tool directly. This gives clear context for selection, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it.

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