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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the auth prerequisite ('Needs the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app') and that results are returned 'by name'.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and output, then the handoff, then the auth note. The redundant 'Crexi:' prefix is minor dead weight but overall it is tight and appropriately sized.

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-param list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (saved searches by name), the auth requirement, and the next action. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing, though it could note pagination or result limits.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly implies no input is required, instead describing the follow-on step where a name/ID is consumed.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Returns the marketplace searches saved in your account, by name'), so an agent immediately knows this is a read/list operation over saved searches. It does not explicitly contrast itself with similarly-named siblings like crexi_list_my_listings, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 names the downstream tool ('Pass a name or ID to run_saved_search'), establishing the workflow: list here, then execute there. That is clear context for when to use this tool, though it stops short of stating any when-not conditions.

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