Get my saved Redfin searches

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses authentication requirements, the source of the data, the empty-array behavior, and explicitly confirms read-only/idempotent behavior. This is exactly the kind of contextual behavioral information an agent needs that the annotations do not fully express.

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 compact and front-loads the main purpose, then adds entry shape, auth requirement, empty behavior, and safety. The final 'Read-only; safe to call repeatedly' partially duplicates the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, but the redundancy is minor and the overall size is well calibrated.

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 one-optional-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it defines the return entry shape, explains the empty result, flags authentication, and identifies the data source. Nothing critical to calling the tool correctly appears to be missing.

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%, and the view parameter is already thoroughly documented in the schema with compact/full semantics and caveats. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline of 3 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 states the exact resource: the signed-in user's saved searches on redfin.com, sourced from the saved-searches page HTML. This is a specific verb-plus-resource statement that makes the function's job unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with redfin_get_saved_homes, but the resource name itself is distinctive enough to avoid serious confusion.

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 gives clear context for when to call this tool: when you need the current signed-in user's saved searches, and it notes the signed-in prerequisite. It also says what happens when there are none, which is useful operational guidance. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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