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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only/idempotent profile, and the description adds genuinely new context: listing is free, at most 100 rows per page plus up to three audit receipts, follow _links.next, and results scoped to the authenticated owner and active organization. These pagination and scope traits go beyond the structured annotations, though rate/error behavior is untouched.

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 action and composed of short declarative sentences, each carrying information. 'Find saved tabs prompts before generation' is somewhat cryptic, but there is little wasted text.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers pagination (cursor, _links.next, page cap), cost, and ownership scope, which is most of what an agent needs to call a list tool correctly. It stops short of clarifying the domain-vs-site/audit distinction, which is the main remaining 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 coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents the id, after, source, and language parameters. The description reinforces the language and source filters and the cursor mechanism but adds no syntax or values beyond the enumerated schema, and guest_token is never addressed. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb is loose ('Find') and the resource is described as 'saved tabs prompts before generation', which does not clearly say these are domain fix prompts. It never distinguishes itself from close siblings like list_site_fix_prompts, list_audit_fix_prompts, or generate_domain_fix_prompt. The purpose is inferable but not stated with 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?

Phrases like 'before generation' and 'Keep language and source filters when following the cursor' imply the listing workflow and pagination discipline, but no alternative tool is named and no explicit when/when-not condition is given. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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