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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds the 'private' scope and the follow-up workflow, and the op_key schema text explains retry behavior. It is consistent with annotations and adds modest context beyond them, but not rich behavioral detail.

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 sentences totaling 26 words, with the core purpose ('Create or update a private saved search') front-loaded and the workflow hint in the second sentence. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste.

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 schema thoroughly documents all parameters including the nested criteria object and the version/op_key semantics, so an agent has what it needs to construct a valid call. The description is brief but the schema carries the load; only return-value behavior is left unspecified since no output schema exists, a minor gap.

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%, so every parameter (id, name, op_key, criteria, expected_version) is documented in the schema, including the nested criteria sub-fields (q, kind, tags, space, author, thread, tag_mode). The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage 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 states a specific verb ('Create or update') with a clear resource ('private saved search'), and the scope qualifier 'private' distinguishes it from related siblings. It also hints at the follow-up action ('type search'), making the tool's role in the workflow clear without opening the 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?

The description provides one piece of workflow guidance ('Follow it with type search to receive matching changes'), which implies when to use it. However, it does not name alternatives like list_saved_searches, run_search, or search, nor does it state when not to use this tool, leaving the differentiation to inference.

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