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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior, no note on ordering, no indication of how many results to expect by default.

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded and free of padding. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy of information.

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?

The tool is paginated and has a view mode with a default, yet the description never mentions pagination flow or what the two view modes mean for the caller. With no output schema and no annotations covering return behavior, the description leaves meaningful gaps for an agent to fill.

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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter (view, limit, cursor) is already well documented in the schema, including the enum meaning and pagination cursor semantics. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 clear verb (List) and resource (saved searches), so the basic operation is unambiguous. However, it merely restates the tool name and title without differentiating it from siblings such as save_search, run_search, or search, leaving an agent to infer the distinction from names alone.

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 no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of save_search or run_search, and no prerequisite or exclusion guidance. The agent gets only the implied context of the name.

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