save_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether saving overwrites existing searches, if it requires special permissions, or what happens on duplicate names. The benefit statement is motivational, not behavioral.

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 concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second explains the benefit. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description is incomplete for a 10-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations. It doesn't describe what the tool returns after saving, nor does it cover edge cases like duplicate names or overwrite behavior. The schema covers parameters well, but the overall context is lacking.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds no extra parameter-level details. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides comprehensive descriptions for all 10 parameters.

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's function: 'Save a named search query for later reuse.' This is a specific verb+resource combination and differentiates from sibling tools like get_saved_search, delete_saved_search, and list_saved_searches by focusing on the act of saving.

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 implies usage context ('for later reuse', 'so you don't have to re-type complex searches') but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions.

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