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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses partial-update semantics, the last-run watermark reset triggered by a changed query, the 50-query-per-npub cap, per-npub name uniqueness, owner scoping, and the free/no-cost nature. These are exactly the traits an agent needs before mutating saved state.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the create/update branch, then constraints, then return shape. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers lifecycle, limits, and return shape, and an output schema exists so return values need little elaboration. The gap is authentication/identity parameters (dpop_token, safe_defaults) that remain undocumented anywhere.

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 14%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the core parameters: query_id (create vs update switch), weights (only overridden scoring values are stored), query (change resets watermark), and name (uniqueness). It leaves dpop_token and safe_defaults entirely unexplained, which keeps it short of a 5 for a 7-parameter tool.

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 ('Save a named X search clause to run with find_conversations') and clearly frames the create-vs-update upsert behavior. It is easy to distinguish from list/delete query siblings, though those are not named explicitly.

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?

Gives explicit conditions for when to create (omit query_id) versus update in place (pass query_id), plus the partial-update rule that only passed fields change. Missing is a pointer to the delete/list siblings for the other lifecycle operations, but the routing guidance for this tool itself is clear.

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