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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world behavior. The description adds important domain semantics beyond annotations: saving has no purchasing or update-starting side effect, and a stale revision is rejected. This is valuable behavioral context, though it does not cover permissions or full error behavior.

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 core action and its most important non-effect. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, billing clarification, and revision/retry instruction.

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?

Output schema exists, annotations are rich, and all parameters are documented in the schema. The description supplies the critical domain nuance that saving is not purchasing or activating updates, which an agent could not infer from structured fields. Minor gaps around permissions or failure modes are acceptable given the surrounding schema richness.

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 schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces the revision and retry-key semantics but adds no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema states, and does not discuss name or workflow_id. Baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Name and save this account's search') and immediately distinguishes the action from billing/activation siblings by clarifying that saving does not buy a subscription or start updates. An agent can tell this apart from start_search, create_checkout, and set_lead_updates without opening a schema.

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?

Clearly implies the use case: retaining/naming an existing account search. It also gives concrete operational guidance ('Use the current revision and a stable retry key'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the billing/activation caveat provides strong contextual routing.

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