list_saved_searches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about read-only safety, result ordering, pagination, or authorization scope. Beyond confirming the operation is a listing, it discloses no behavioral traits.

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 short sentence with no filler and the key concept front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter listing tool, though it borders on under-specification rather than tight editing.

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?

With 0 parameters and an output schema covering return values, the tool's complexity is low, so the minimal description is nearly sufficient. It still omits any hint of ordering, auth scope, or relation to the sibling saved-search tools, leaving a modest gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% but empty, and the description correctly implies a no-argument call.

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?

"List all persisted searches" gives a clear verb and resource, so an agent knows the operation is a read of stored searches. However, "persisted" is essentially a paraphrase of "saved" in the name, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like list_hunts or check_saved_search. It is minimally viable rather than specifically differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus check_saved_search, list_hunts, or save_search/delete_saved_search. The agent must infer the retrieval role purely from the name and description.

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