search_traffic_shapers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds only 'filtering and pagination,' which are already evident from the input schema, and does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as client-side filtering or response formats.

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 a single six-word sentence that is fully front-loaded and free of redundancy. It earns its place without unnecessary elaboration.

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 rich input schema (5 fully described parameters), annotations, and output schema, the description is sufficient for a straightforward read-only search operation. It lacks explicit context about result scope or comparison to sibling search tools, but the structured data compensates.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'filtering and pagination' maps to the parameters but adds no additional semantics 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 the verb 'Search' with the specific resource 'traffic shapers' and notes filtering and pagination, clearly distinguishing it from related sibling tools like search_shaper_queues or create_traffic_shaper.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_shaper_queues or search_traffic_limiters. Usage is implied by the name and the word 'Search,' but no conditions or exclusions are stated.

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