search_traffic_limiters

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail of filtering and pagination, which helps set expectations for the result set, but otherwise provides no additional side-effect or authentication context.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and key behaviors. It contains no filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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 read-only search tool with an output schema, annotations, and fully-documented parameters, the description covers the core purpose and high-level behavior. The main missing piece is usage guidance against alternatives, but given the supporting structured data, the description is largely adequate.

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%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters (page, sort_by, page_size, search_term). The description's mention of 'filtering and pagination' loosely corresponds to these parameters but adds no semantic details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Search traffic limiters' with the clarifying parenthetical '(dummynet pipes)' to specify the exact resource, and mentions filtering and pagination. The verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_traffic_shapers, though an explicit contrast with alternatives is absent.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this search tool versus sibling tools like search_traffic_shapers or the CRUD limiter tools. The description only states the action without any exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations, leaving it to the agent to infer usage context.

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