list_saved_research

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are owned, retain editable settings, and do not archive temporary reports, which is useful but vague and does not clarify permissions, rate limits, or return shape.

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?

Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no obvious filler. The second sentence is somewhat cryptic, but the overall size and ordering are efficient.

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 paginated list tool with no output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain page_size, uses a cursor name that conflicts with the schema, and describes the return content only loosely as 'source-filter linkage.'

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions pagination via 'next_cursor' (a different name from the schema's 'cursor') and never addresses page_size. This leaves the parameter semantics substantially under-explained.

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 ('List owned saved Angles ideas') and adds that source-filter linkage is included. However, 'Angles ideas' is domain jargon, and the description does not name or distinguish itself from siblings like get_saved_research or list_saved_filters.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives such as get_saved_research, list_saved_filters, or list_filter_research. The only usage instruction is 'Page explicitly with next_cursor,' which is a pagination note rather than selection guidance.

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