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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds real context beyond them: results are scoped to the account owning the API key, and each entry carries its filters and a `query` field. It says nothing about ordering or pagination, which is a minor gap for a read-only list.

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, no filler: the first defines the scope and content of the result, the second routes the agent to the follow-up tool. Everything is front-loaded and nothing is wasted.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers scope, content, and follow-up usage. Only result ordering or volume limits are unstated, which is acceptable for this complexity level.

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?

There are no input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does useful work by explaining that each returned search exposes a `query` field intended for search_signals, giving the returned object partial semantics.

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 names a specific resource (saved Signals searches, with their filters) and scopes it to the account owning the API key, which an agent can distinguish from search_signals. The listing verb is implied by the name/title rather than stated explicitly, keeping this just short of a 5.

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 gives concrete next-step guidance: take a search's `query` and pass it to search_signals to run it, which links this tool to the correct sibling. It does not spell out when not to use it or whether saved searches can be created/modified elsewhere, but for a zero-param listing tool the guidance is clear.

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