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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: result ordering, the fact that find_similar_creators runs appear in the history, and that calls do not consume the daily search quota. It stops short of describing the response shape or how pagination interacts with the newest-first ordering.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the highest-value information (what it lists and its ordering, then the alternative tool). No redundant restatement of the title and no 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden by naming the fields returned and their ordering. Pagination defaults and archived-search handling are delegated to the fully documented schema, so only minor gaps (no mention of total counts or empty-history behavior) remain.

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 100%, so page, limit, campaignId and includeArchived are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no param-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the searches run before') plus the exact payload returned (query, filters, result count) and ordering (newest first). The scope note that find_similar_creators searches are included distinguishes it from the other list_* siblings that cover saved creators and campaigns.

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 routes the agent away from re-running a search: 'To see a search's results again, call get_search instead of searching again.' It also gives a cost-based reason to prefer this tool (free, no daily-limit impact), though it never states an explicit when-not-to-use case such as excluding active or in-progress searches.

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