get_saved_filter

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

Annotations already carry readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive hints, so the bar is lower; the description adds the ownership/auth constraint ('owned') and specifies the returned payload (native rule, revision, diagnostics, link), which is useful context not present in structured fields.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the return contents are listed compactly. Appropriately sized for a one-parameter read tool.

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 trivial by-id read with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the scope (owned) and the returned fields in lieu of an output schema, so an agent knows what it will get. Only parameter details are thin.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate; it only indirectly conveys that filter_id selects an owned filter and gives no format, range or error semantics. The single obvious integer ID keeps this from being a severe gap.

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 (Read) and resource (one owned saved filter) and enumerates what it returns (native rule, revision, support diagnostics, website link). It implicitly contrasts with list_saved_filters, but never names a sibling to differentiate, and get_saved_research sits adjacent.

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 only implied: the singular 'one owned saved filter' plus the required filter_id signals a by-id lookup, distinguishing it from the list tools. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and no named alternative.

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