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 by structured data. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it discloses what is returned (query type, chart style, event names, dashboard membership) and describes a truncation/pagination behavior ('if totalCount exceeds the returned results, call again with a more specific search'). It does not mention default page size, but the schema does.

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 purpose and followed by return contents and then the narrowing tactic; nothing is padding. Minor risk: "Use 'search' to find queries..." is unquoted-path ambiguous and could momentarily read as a sibling tool reference.

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 four parameters, two required scoping params (projectId, environment), and no output schema, the description does cover what comes back and how to page. It does not state that results are scoped to the current project/environment combination beyond a passing phrase, nor mention ordering, so an agent must infer some scoping and result-shape details.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, and the description earns above baseline by clarifying that 'search' matches and ranks on name or description with concrete example terms, and by tying 'limit' to a totalCount-driven refine-and-retry loop. It adds meaning about result semantics rather than restating the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List the saved analytics queries in the current project') and then enumerates the returned fields (type, chart style, tracked event names, dashboards), which lets an agent distinguish this from get_query or the create_*_query siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming a contrasting sibling, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is real usage context: use the 'search' argument for name/description lookups (with concrete examples 'FTUE funnel', 'DAU') and refine the search when totalCount exceeds the returned page. However, that guidance is about how to use a parameter rather than when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_query, list_dashboards, or the run_*_query tools, so selection guidance is only implied.

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