payload_search_tool

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It reveals it performs full-text search, requires Pro/Team plan, and specifies ISO-8601 format for since/until. Does not mention idempotency, rate limits, or pagination, but enough for basic understanding.

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 with purpose and includes a bullet-like list of examples. Relatively short, but the examples add some verbosity. No wasted sentences, but could be slightly more concise.

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?

With 4 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the basic use case and format constraint. Lacks guidance on query construction (e.g., wildcards) or pagination limits. Adequate but leaves some gaps for new users.

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%, and description only clarifies 'since/until are ISO-8601 UTC strings'. It implies 'query' is a search term but does not explain 'limit' or detailed parameter syntax. Insufficient compensation for lack of schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states it performs full-text search across HTTP URL paths and user agents in attack traffic, with specific usage examples like 'find attacks targeting /wp-admin'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like asn_enrich_tool or ioc_lookup_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?

Provides clear examples of when to use (e.g., 'find exploit attempts for CVE-2024-XXXX') and mentions 'Pro/Team plan only' as a constraint. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the context is sufficient.

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