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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that by disclosing the Authorization bearer workspace key requirement, the placement in client headers, and the need to ask before creating or deleting. This is useful behavioral context not present in the annotations.

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?

The description is compact: the main purpose and operation list are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the auth requirement and caution follow quickly. It avoids filler while packing useful details, though the operation list is a little dense.

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 multi-operation dispatch tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description should clarify how id, name, and criteria relate to each operation. It covers auth and destructive behavior but leaves the main parameter relationships undefined, so an agent cannot reliably construct calls for all operations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the four parameters. It lists possible operation values, which partially covers the 'operation' parameter, but it never explains the meaning or intended use of id, name, or criteria, leaving significant gaps.

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 uses the generic verb 'Manage' but anchors it to a specific resource, 'private saved opportunity searches,' and enumerates the specific operations: list/create/events/delete/rotate_feed/delete_workspace. It also distinguishes these private saved searches from 'Public research tools', which separates it from sibling search tools.

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 gives clear context: this tool operates on private saved searches and requires a workspace key set in client headers, not tool arguments. It also instructs the agent to ask before creating or deleting and notes that public research tools do not need this key, giving implicit routing guidance.

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