search_traffic

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description usefully scopes the search to URL, headers and body. However, it discloses nothing about matching semantics (case sensitivity, regex, substring rules), result ordering, or the default/limit behavior, and it says nothing about the odd destructiveHint=true annotation, which an agent reading 'Find requests' would not expect.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb and searchable scope stated first and no wasted words. Nothing could be trimmed without losing the field-scope information.

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?

Placeholder.

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 67% and the schema already documents 'query' and the 'in' enum; the description merely restates those same fields (URL/headers/body, 'some text'). The 'limit' parameter has a default but no description anywhere, and the description does not compensate for that gap.

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 ('Find') and resource ('requests') plus the searchable fields, so the agent knows exactly what the tool searches. It does not differentiate from siblings like list_requests or summarize_traffic, so an agent must infer when this beats a plain listing.

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 phrase 'contain some text' implies a substring-search use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of alternatives (list_requests, get_request, summarize_traffic), and no note on when this tool is inappropriate. Usage is left entirely to inference.

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