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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the write-but-safe-and-idempotent profile is covered structurally. The description adds the 'private' visibility scope, which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about what happens to the prior search on update or any permission requirements.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is slightly cryptic ('type search'), which costs a point on an otherwise tight definition.

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?

For a mutation tool with a nested criteria object and no output schema, the description covers the create/update duality but omits mutation-relevant behavior such as permission requirements, update-overwrite semantics, and how the saved search is later consumed. The annotations and rich schema fill much of the gap, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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%, including the nested criteria object and the id/expected_version create-vs-update distinction, so the schema carries parameter meaning on its own. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond the 'private' qualifier, making the baseline 3 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 pair (create or update) and resource (private saved search), which separates it from siblings like run_search and list_saved_searches. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, and the phrase 'type search' is ambiguous about which related tool it means.

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?

Implied usage is clear: create a new saved search or update an existing one, with the schema's id parameter deciding which. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus run_search or search, and the closing sentence 'Follow it with type search' reads as a vague follow-up instruction rather than a selection criterion.

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