save_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a state-creating operation, yet it only states the end goal. It omits whether saving is idempotent, what happens on a duplicate name (the schema calls name 'unique' but the description never addresses collisions), whether the record persists server-side, and what errors can occur.

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, and the purpose is stated before the mechanism. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a five-parameter creation 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a 5-parameter mutation with no annotations and 40% schema coverage the description is too thin. It never covers the alternative parameter modes, name uniqueness behavior, or failure cases.

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 only 40%: url and name are documented, but query, region_id, and category_id are bare. The description adds nothing about parameters and does not explain the two mutually exclusive input modes (a full URL vs. query/category_id/region_id) that the schema only hints at in the url field.

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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ('Save a search') and adds the downstream purpose (enabling check_saved_search to report only new listings), which distinguishes it from sibling read tools like search_listings and list_saved_searches. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the other save/delete siblings, but the intent 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?

Usage is implied through the causal link to check_saved_search ('so check_saved_search can report only new listings later'), which tells the agent when this tool matters. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no statement about what to do if the search already exists.

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