payload_search_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It explains that it searches payloads and requires a query, since, until, and optional limit. However, it does not describe what the output looks like, pagination, rate limits, or other side effects, which would be helpful.

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 fairly concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes usage examples and format hints without excessive verbiage. Minor improvement could be structuring it as a list for readability.

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 there are 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose, usage context, and parameter constraints. It lacks some behavioral details, but overall it is complete enough for typical use.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that since/until are ISO-8601 UTC strings, which is valuable. However, it does not clarify the query parameter (though examples help) or the limit parameter. This partial coverage makes it adequate but not excellent.

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 clearly states it does full-text search across HTTP URL paths and user agents in attack traffic. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_events_tool or ioc_lookup_tool, which likely cover different data types.

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 concrete usage examples ('find attacks targeting /wp-admin', 'show exploit attempts for CVE-2024-XXXX') and mentions plan restrictions and date format. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparison with alternatives.

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