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

The annotations already declare this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context by noting that results include workflow IDs and revisions and by warning that a search's source should be checked before relying on it.

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 description is two sentences, front-loads the listing behavior, and follows with a relevant usage note. There is no wasted language.

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 input parameters, rich safety annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. It even supplements the output schema by naming workflow IDs and revisions as relevant result fields.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to clarify. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: list the connected account's saved searches. It also distinguishes listing saved searches from reopening one to inspect its source, which helps separate it from siblings like gisdb_get_search.

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 clearly says the tool lists saved searches and advises reopening a search to check its source before treating it as current. The guidance is useful but does not explicitly name the alternative tool or state when not to use this one.

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