Clear Saved Search Net New Results

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that this tool marks results as 'seen' to prevent them from appearing in future calls, which clarifies the 'reset' effect. Annotations provide hints (e.g., not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description enhances this by detailing the queue management aspect. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, input, workflow), front-loading the core action. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, such as explaining the tool's effect and integration in a workflow. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral effects, and workflow integration. Annotations provide additional hints (e.g., idempotent), and the description fills gaps by explaining the 'reset' functionality, making it sufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 100%, with the input schema fully documenting the 'search_id' parameter. The description adds minimal semantics by listing 'search_id' in the 'Input' section but does not provide additional meaning (e.g., format examples or sourcing guidance) beyond what the schema already states. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 explicitly states the specific action ('Mark all net new results as "seen"') and the resource ('saved search net new results'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like harmonic_get_saved_search_net_new_results (which retrieves results) and harmonic_get_saved_search_results (which may retrieve all results). The purpose is precise and avoids tautology.

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 description includes a dedicated 'When to use' section that explicitly states to call this tool 'AFTER you've processed net new results to reset the queue,' and it names the alternative tool (harmonic_get_saved_search_net_new_results) for comparison. It also provides a workflow with step-by-step guidance, making usage context clear and actionable.

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