search_flows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses what the tool returns and that filtering is supported, but it omits details such as default time range, max results, or any side effects/requirements (e.g., read-only behavior). The schema supplies some defaults, but the description itself adds limited behavioral context beyond the return fields.

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 two concise sentences with the main action front-loaded in the first sentence and return details in the second. No redundant information or filler.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, filter capabilities, and return fields. For a 7-parameter tool with a complete schema, this is largely sufficient. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this versus related flow tools, and it does not clarify default behavior like time range or limit handling, which may be important for agents.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters, so the description's filter list adds minimal value. The description mentions filters like device MAC, domain, IP, port, category, and time range, which directly correspond to parameters, but it does not provide any additional syntax, formatting, or edge-case guidance beyond the schema's 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?

The description clearly identifies the action (Search), the resource (individual network flow records), and provides specific return fields (destination IP, domain, port, protocol, bytes, country, app category). The term 'individual' and 'per-connection' helps distinguish from aggregate tools like get_top_talkers.

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 implies the tool is for searching flows with filters, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over related tools like get_device_flows or get_top_talkers. There are no alternative suggestions or exclusion criteria.

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