Execute Saved Search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and it does well: it enumerates the outputs (first result page, paging fields, job_id, Splunk Web links), specifies the has_more follow-up call, and notes permission constraints. It could still mention side effects or cleanup/resource implications of job mode, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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-loaded: action, use case, mode choice, outputs, follow-up, and security in four sentences. Every sentence carries useful information without redundancy.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the most critical context: what executes, what results look like, how to page, and permission constraints. It is not fully complete because several optional parameters are left unexplained, but an agent can safely invoke the tool with just the required name and defaults.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it explains only a few parameters: name (by name), time overrides (earliest_time/latest_time), and mode (oneshot/job). max_results, app, and owner are not explained, and no default/format details are provided for any parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and object, 'Run a saved search by name', and clarifies the resource as existing reports/automations. It is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling search tools such as run_splunk_search or run_oneshot_search, so the sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

'Use this to execute existing reports/automations quickly' gives an explicit use context, and the oneshot-vs-job guidance tells the agent which mode to pick for immediate results versus progress tracking and large result sets. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or named alternatives for ad-hoc searches, so it falls short of a 5.

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