search_requests

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It does reveal meaningful behavior—the query syntax (method:, content:) and request_type values—but omits basic semantics like the meaning of limit, sorting values, or whether the search is scoped to a single webhook (only implied via webhook_token). It's not misleading, but it leaves the agent guessing on the output shape and filter semantics.

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?

Three tight sentences: one for purpose, one for when-to-use, one with concrete examples. Every line earns its place with zero filler. The example block is scannable and immediately illustrative.

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?

For a 7-parameter search tool with a query language, the description covers the primary use cases (find by method, keyword, type, date) and introduces the query DSL. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be specified. The main gap is absence of date-format and pagination/limit semantics, but the tool remains usable with defaults.

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?

With only 14% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for 6 undocumented parameters. It helpfully decodes the query parameter syntax (method:, content:) and demonstrates request_type usage, but says nothing about date_from/date_to format, limit, or the sorting values beyond the 'newest' default. Partial compensation for a large documentation gap.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Search captured events by method, body text, headers, type, or date.' The concrete examples (query='method:POST', query='content:verify', request_type='email') remove any ambiguity about what fields are searchable, cleanly distinguishing this from sibling retrieval tools like get_latest_request.

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?

Explicitly states when to reach for this tool: 'Use when the user asks to find POSTs, a keyword, or only emails/DNS.' This is clear, actionable when-to-use context. It doesn't name exclusions or point to alternatives like get_webhook_requests, but the trigger conditions are specific enough that an agent would rarely misfire.

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