Get a saved search

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description's real contribution is disclosing the return shape (groups, counts, platforms, filters) in the absence of an output schema. It doesn't cover behavior on a nonexistent or deleted id, which is the remaining gap.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the return-content enumeration comes before the alternative-tool pointer, so an agent learns what it gets first and where to go next second.

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, enumerating the returned fields and pointing to find_entities for drill-down covers nearly everything an agent needs. Only error/not-found behavior is unaddressed.

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?

Single id parameter with 100% schema description coverage and a uuid format/pattern constraint, so the schema already does the work. The description never mentions the id argument or its expected form, though there was little left to add.

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 ('Get') and resource ('one saved search's configuration') and then enumerates exactly what configuration fields come back: comparison groups, entity counts, platforms, date range, keyword filters. That level of specificity distinguishes it cleanly from list_saved_searches and get_entity.

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?

The second sentence gives a concrete routing rule with the exact parameters to pass: use find_entities with savedSearchId and groupId to enumerate member entities. It doesn't address when to prefer list_saved_searches or update_saved_search, but for the main ambiguity (config vs. members) guidance is explicit.

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