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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is established. The description adds substantial behavioral context: return fields, plan-specific limits, remaining slots, and the fact that it doesn't count against monthly search quotas. No contradictions with 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 concise and front-loaded with the core action ('List all saved searches'). Every sentence adds value: return fields, usage priority, plan details, and monthly search note. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, why it should be used first, plan availability, and operational impact. The context signals confirm low complexity, and the description fills all gaps.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is complete by definition. The baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools applies; the description appropriately focuses on response content rather than parameters, which is not needed.

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 'List all saved searches for the current user' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like save_search and update_saved_search. It also enumerates the returned fields, which adds specificity.

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 instruction 'Use this FIRST to check what the user already has before creating or updating searches' provides explicit when-to-use context. It also mentions plan limits and that it doesn't count toward monthly searches, but lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance.

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