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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds traits annotations cannot express: ordering (oldest first), that paused searches are included, returned fields including active=false meaning paused, quota used/limit, and an Inferno-plan-only gate.

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?

Content is front-loaded: what it lists and its scope come first, then returned fields, then routing to siblings, then the plan gate. Dense but every clause earns its place; nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 read-only, zero-required-param list tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields and the quota object, and names the downstream tools that consume the ids. Nothing an agent needs to select or call this correctly is missing.

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?

Single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains workspaceId fallback behavior. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at this coverage level but leaves no extra value.

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?

Specific verb+resource: lists saved searches that watch for brand/competitor/topic mentions on X and in news, with scope qualifiers (oldest first, paused included) and the exact fields returned. Distinguishes itself from create_saved_search, pause/resume/delete_saved_search and list_mentions by name.

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: obtain an id for pause_saved_search/resume_saved_search/delete_saved_search, or check quota before create_saved_search. Also states the exclusion — to read what searches found, use list_mentions — and the plan restriction (Inferno only).

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