screen my traffic

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

The description prominently warns that the tool spends money, bills the workspace wallet, and can return 402 when the funds gate is not met. It also discloses that it waits for the run and returns verdicts, adding behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 dense and front-loaded with the screening question, then mechanics, then cost, then routing. It is longer than strictly necessary and uses a long dash-laden sentence, but every sentence carries distinct value.

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?

It covers prerequisites, cost, high-level output, and candidate selection, which is strong for a tool with no required parameters and no output schema. It stops short of fully describing the polling path when wait_seconds expires and the exact return shape, though wait_seconds is already documented in the schema.

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?

All parameters are already fully described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that candidate_models are the challengers that override the auto-picked cheaper set and that the tool is zero-config with all parameters optional.

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 opens with a concrete question and defines the tool as a zero-config screening of the workspace's own traffic, naming the incumbent, challengers, and the verdict/recommendation output. It also explicitly contrasts with create_eval, so an agent can distinguish this tool from siblings.

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 states prerequisites ('Needs request logging on and logged traffic') and gives an explicit routing rule: 'Prefer this over create_eval for the is X better/cheaper question.' The cost gate and zero-config nature further clarify when the tool is appropriate.

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