search_flows

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: it "Runs a read-only POST /openapi/v1/flowsearch with t0 = now-hours, t1 = now." This tells the agent the operation is non-mutating and how the time window is computed. It omits auth requirements and any rate/result-size caveats.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then a clean Args block, then one line of implementation detail. Every element earns its place, though the trailing endpoint description is somewhat module-specific rather than agent-facing.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be described, and all three parameters are documented with ranges and an example. The remaining gap is the absence of auth/permission context or pagination behavior for a tool that can return up to 1000 records.

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%, yet the description compensates fully: it gives a concrete filter JSON example with field syntax, the empty-string default meaning, valid ranges for hours (1–720) and limit (1–1000), and the default for hours. This exceeds what the bare schema conveys.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ("Search network flows") with a scope qualifier ("over a recent time window"), so an agent immediately knows what it returns. It doesn't, however, differentiate itself from the similar sibling top_risky_flows, leaving the agent to infer the difference between a general flow search and a ranked-risky-flows tool.

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 rather than stated: the empty-string hint ("no filter (all flows in the window)") and the CSW filter example show how to invoke it, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as top_risky_flows. Adequate for a search tool but no routing guidance.

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