search_saved

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does deliver two real behavioral facts: zero credit cost and a hard cap of the 100 most recent URLs. It does not say whether the query matches URL strings or page content, what the response looks like, or whether results are paginated/ranked, which leaves meaningful gaps for a search tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the scope limit, and every clause carries information the agent would not otherwise have (100-item cap, no credit cost). Nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials: corpus, recency bound, and cost. The main omission is what the query matches against and roughly what comes back, which matters slightly given the ambiguity of "URLs".

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 0% and the sole parameter is an unconstrained string, so the description must compensate. It partially does by establishing the search target (the account's scraped URLs) and the corpus size, but gives no matching syntax, case sensitivity, or multi-term behavior.

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?

"Search this account's latest 100 scraped URLs" gives a specific verb (search) plus resource (previously scraped URLs) and a bounded scope, so an agent can tell it apart from the fresh-scraping siblings (scrape_page, scrape_batch, map_site). It stops short of naming an alternative, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

"Uses no credits" implies the cost trade-off against the scraping tools, and "this account's latest 100" implies the content must already exist. Neither is stated as an explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use rule, so the agent must infer that this is the cheap lookup path rather than a fresh fetch.

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