Get Saved Search Details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the exact response shape (dictionary with status, name, details, retrieved_at) and enumerates the nested detail categories, such as scheduling, permissions, and alert actions. It does not discuss auth requirements or errors, but it provides substantial runtime behavior beyond the tool name.

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 a summary, Args section, and Response Format section. It is longer than minimal but every section adds value. There is minor redundancy between the opening sentences and the Response Format breakdown, but the organization keeps it scannable and front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately compensates by documenting the return structure and the contents of the nested 'details' object. Combined with parameter explanations, this gives an agent enough context to invoke the tool and interpret results. It could mention error cases or permission prerequisites, but it is reasonably complete for a read-only detail-fetch operation.

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. It does by listing each parameter with a meaningful explanation: name is 'required', app is 'Application context for saved search lookup', and owner is 'Owner context for saved search lookup'. This adds practical lookup semantics that the bare JSON schema lacks.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get comprehensive details about a specific saved search' and enumerates the included facets (configuration, metadata, scheduling, permissions, alert actions). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_saved_searches, update_saved_search, or delete_saved_search.

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 clear usage context by stating it is 'Essential for troubleshooting, auditing, and understanding saved search configurations' and emphasizes 'a specific saved search.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is enough to guide an agent toward single-item inspection rather than listing.

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