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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context beyond that: OAuth account:read scope required, seller grants do not cross accounts, untrusted query text, deliberately omitted filter JSON, unknown currency preserved as unknown, oversized text omitted, and explicit failure modes for expired cursors and provider errors. It is verbose but not redundant with the 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 core operation is front-loaded correctly, but the remainder is a dense wall of boilerplate sentences ('Shared MCP Baseline 1.0.0 envelope', 'no persistent plans or provider submissions', 'discovery cannot grant access') that repeat the read-only claim several times. Much of it could be trimmed without losing any decision-relevant information.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it still covers auth requirements, account scoping, omission semantics and error behavior. Given a 2-parameter read tool, that leaves little an agent would need that is missing.

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% and both parameters (limit, cursor) carry their own descriptions, including the same-account/connection/page-size constraint for the cursor. The description only echoes that cursor rule and adds no new meaning for limit beyond the schema's wire-budget note, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource with scope: traverse saved searches in the authenticated buyer account, capped at 20. It implicitly separates itself from the create/delete/rename siblings via 'neither saves changes nor sends or enables alerts', but never names a sibling directly, so it stops 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?

The only usage instruction is 'Use supercatch_list_saved_searches for this read in the connected account', which restates the tool name rather than saying when to pick it over supercatch_create_saved_search, supercatch_rename_saved_search, or supercatch_delete_saved_search. The cursor-reuse and expired-cursor notes are operational constraints, not when-to-use guidance.

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