get_saved_search_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It details the return format as a dictionary with fields like status, name, details, and retrieved_at, and enumerates the nested information within details. It does not explicitly mention idempotency or whether the operation is read-only, but the context implies it is a read operation.

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 clear summary, then detailed sections for arguments and response format. It is somewhat verbose but front-loads the key purpose. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall it is effectively organized.

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 the complexity of a saved search details tool and the lack of output schema, the description provides a comprehensive breakdown of the response structure including all major nested categories (basic_info, scheduling, dispatch, permissions, actions, alert, metadata). This level of detail suffices for an agent to understand what to expect.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by clearly explaining each parameter: name is required, app and owner are optional with context descriptions. This enables proper agent usage without needing schema annotations.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves comprehensive details about a specific saved search, listing specific areas like configuration, scheduling, permissions, and alert actions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_saved_searches (which lists) and get_configurations (generic) by focusing on saved search specifics.

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 explicitly states the tool is 'Essential for troubleshooting, auditing, and understanding saved search configurations,' indicating when to use it. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or directly compare to alternatives like list_saved_searches or execute_saved_search.

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