List saved searches

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the description correctly spends its space elsewhere: it discloses the 10-saved-searches-per-account quota and enumerates the email alert values (Never, Daily, Instantly). It omits that results may be paginated despite exposing a cursor, which is the one meaningful behavioral 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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, followed by the returned fields and the quota constraint. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by naming the fields and the alert enum values. The only shortfall is that pagination behavior (whether a cursor is always returned, page size) is left implicit.

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?

Only one parameter (cursor) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines it as the next_cursor from the previous call. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns no bonus.

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 names a specific resource (saved project searches for the signed-in account) and states exactly what is returned: title, email alert, and filters. It distinguishes the tool from search_projects by noting the filters are inputs to that sibling rather than outputs of it.

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?

Usage is implied — retrieve what the account has saved, then feed filters.query/filters.category into search_projects — but there is no explicit when-to-use versus save_search or search_projects, and no stated conditions or exclusions. The cross-reference to search_projects is the only routing signal.

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