List past searches

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose useful traits: newest-first ordering, inclusion of BuzzSearch app searches, and zero cost. However, it is silent on pagination/limit behavior and what each result entry contains, so behavioral disclosure is partial rather than complete.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with the core purpose stated first; the fragment 'Free.' is terse but earns its place by conveying cost routing. Slightly denser than ideal but no real waste.

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 simple optional-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, cost, and the redirection path adequately. Return-value shape is unstated, but that is a minor gap for a listing endpoint.

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 coverage is 67% and the description adds nothing about limit, channel, or contains. The channel enum and the contains filter are explained in the schema itself, and limit is self-evident, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description misses an opportunity to compensate for the uncovered portions.

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 and resource ('Recent searches by the signed-in user, newest first') with ordering and scope made explicit, and it names sibling tools (get_search, get_quotes) it should not be confused with. An agent can distinguish this list operation from the read-one operations without opening any schema.

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?

Provides a clear routing rule: to reread a past search use get_search or get_quotes rather than paying for a new one, and flags that listing is 'Free'. This gives context and an alternative, but does not fully state when this tool itself is preferred over all other search-related siblings.

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