List Saved Searches

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context about what 'saved searches' are ('enable monitoring deal flow and tracking companies over time'), their types (COMPANIES_LIST, PERSONS), and that they contain 'specific filter criteria', which goes beyond the annotations.

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 (What it does, Returns, Search types, Next steps, Use cases), front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, efficiently covering purpose, output format, domain context, and usage guidance.

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 simplicity (1 optional parameter, no output schema but detailed return example provided), rich annotations, and clear sibling differentiation, the description is complete. It explains what saved searches are, their types, return structure, and next steps, leaving no gaps for the agent to understand and invoke this tool correctly.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single parameter (response_format), the schema already fully documents its purpose, enum values, and default. The description adds no additional parameter information, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Get all saved searches') and resource ('accessible to your Harmonic account'), distinguishing it from siblings like harmonic_get_saved_search_results which retrieves actual results. It explicitly notes these are also called 'Saved Views' in the UI, providing precise domain terminology.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('List all team deal flow monitors', 'Find a specific saved search by name', 'Check when a search was last updated') and directs to the alternative tool harmonic_get_saved_search_results for retrieving matching companies/persons. It clearly separates metadata listing from result retrieval.

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