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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the safety bar is low. The description adds that the effect is to re-start an active checking process, but says nothing about side effects on the search's results, whether it works on a non-paused search, or any permissions needed. The idempotencyKey semantics live in the schema, not here.

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?

One compact sentence carrying the action, the precondition, and the id source, with the action front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple state-toggle tool with full schema coverage and annotations that cover the mutation profile, the description is essentially sufficient — an agent can call it correctly. It would be marginally stronger if it referenced pause_saved_search as the counterpart, but nothing blocking 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (id, workspaceId, idempotencyKey) are already documented in the schema, including the idempotencyKey retry protocol. The description adds only the provenance of the id (list_saved_searches), which is marginal. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Start checking a paused saved search again') and even names the state precondition (paused), which cleanly separates it from pause_saved_search and delete_saved_search. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling as the alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the word 'paused' — an agent knows to call this only on a search that has been paused. The parenthetical routes the agent to list_saved_searches for the id, which is helpful. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or mention of the inverse tool (pause_saved_search) to disambiguate the pair.

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