Search traffic

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safety profile, the description still adds meaningful behavior: the search only covers 'a window of recent entries' rather than the full capture, and the limit defaults to 200. That windowed-scan disclosure is exactly the kind of non-obvious trait an agent needs.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the scoping tip second; almost no waste. The only blemish is the dangling 'status' reference in the second sentence.

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 full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, scanning scope, and a practical narrowing tip. Return format need not be described absent an output schema, leaving little genuinely missing.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description reinforces the method filter but also mentions a 'status' constraint that maps to no parameter, adding slight confusion rather than meaning.

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?

States a specific verb (substring search) and resource (captured URLs) with a clear scope of 'a window of recent entries'. It is distinguishable from a plain list operation, though it never names or contrasts with the sibling list_traffic, which is the closest alternative an agent would weigh.

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 gives one useful cue ('for very large captures, narrow the window with method+status first'), which is real when-to-use guidance. However, it offers no condition for choosing search_traffic over list_traffic, and it references a 'status' filter that does not exist among the parameters, so the guidance is partly unusable.

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