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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: zero credit cost, cursor-based paging, and the fact that results are summaries rather than full research payloads. It does not state a default/max page size, which is the only notable gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then filtering/paging, then return shape, then usage triggers – a logical order with no filler sentences. It is dense and slightly long, but each clause carries distinct 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?

For a 6-param list tool with an output schema present, the description covers filtering, sorting, paging, return content, cost, and routing to the detail sibling. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 only 50%, so the description does needed work: it names the kind filter, title search, the sort enum (newest|oldest|title), the archived inclusion (and that active is default), and the cursor for paging. Only 'limit' is left undocumented outside the schema.

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+resource ('List the authenticated user's saved HookLayer research') plus the default ordering, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_saved_research ('Returns summaries ... not the full result; call get_saved_research for one'). An agent can route between the two without opening either 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?

Explicit when-to-use block with three concrete user phrasings ('what have I saved', 'show my saved products', 'find the analysis I saved for @handle') and a named alternative (get_saved_research) for the single-item case. Nothing is left to inference.

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