Search Request and Response Bodies

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: preconditions (acknowledgeRawCapture, precise text query, authorized session), a sensitivity warning about credentials and personal data, and the workflow hint to use monitor_read_artifact next. No contradiction with 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 a single paragraph, front-loading purpose and usage. While it lists multiple content types (authentication, API, GraphQL, etc.), it remains fairly concise without redundant phrases. It could be slightly more structured, but it effectively communicates core information without waste.

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 the tool has 8 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage conditions, and sensitivity, but lacks detail on parameter behavior (e.g., limit, filtering). The output schema is not detailed in the input, but the description doesn't clarify return values or pagination. It leaves gaps for an agent to fully understand invocation.

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 carries the full burden. However, it only mentions two parameters (text and acknowledgeRawCapture) implicitly through preconditions, leaving six other parameters (limit, method, status, sinceSeq, sessionId, urlContains) undocumented. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of 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 states the tool searches request/response bodies, specifies when to use (when body content is relevant and capture enabled), and differentiates by providing preconditions and a follow-up tool (monitor_read_artifact). It pinpoints a specific resource and action, distinguishing it from sibling tools effectively.

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 explicit usage context: when body content is directly relevant and capture enabled, requiring acknowledgeRawCapture: true, a precise text query, and an authorized session. It also suggests the next step (monitor_read_artifact). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the conditions imply exclusions, and it offers clear guidance on alternatives.

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