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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the exact fields returned (filters, email/push notification, frequency) and the auth requirement ('needs the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app'), which is genuinely useful preconditions info.

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 return contents, then the cross-reference and the auth note. The opening phrase ('Your saved searches with filters and notification settings') partially restates the following sentence, a minor redundancy, but 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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations already carrying the safety profile, the description covers the gaps well by describing the return payload and the API-key requirement. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly does not fabricate parameter 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('list your saved searches') and enumerates what is returned (filters, notification channel, frequency), so the agent knows exactly what this retrieves. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like hemnet_list_saved_homes or hemnet_list_collections, 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 gives a useful cross-reference ('Use saved_search_id with delete_saved_search'), which tells the agent where the returned IDs are consumed, but it never states when to call this versus the other Hemnet list tools. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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