search_traffic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the search is bounded, over recent traffic, and uses redacted URLs/headers while bodies are only searched if enabled, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permissions, performance limits, or what 'bounded' means operationally.

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?

A single compact sentence with no wasted words. The scope ('bounded'), target ('recent traffic'), and field-level caveat ('if enabled') are front-loaded efficiently.

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 5-parameter search tool with no annotations and only 40% schema coverage, the description is too sparse. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but missing guidance on parameter roles, alternatives, and bounded-scan behavior leaves the definition incomplete.

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?

The description maps 'URLs, headers and (if enabled) bodies' to the fields parameter and adds the important redaction qualifier. It does not mention host, limit, max_scan, or the query parameter's semantics, leaving notable gaps given only 40% schema description coverage.

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 uses a specific verb and scope ('Bounded search over ... recent traffic') and names the searchable surfaces (URLs, headers, bodies). It is clear this is a search operation rather than a list or fetch, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_requests or get_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?

Usage is implied by 'search over ... recent traffic', which suggests a scoped lookup use case. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over list_requests, get_request, or watch_requests, nor are exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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