List Saved Queries

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail: it returns a Dict with per-query fields including status, last_page, total_available, and records_count. It also reveals the status enum values and how to use the returned url_hash. This goes beyond the annotation and gives the agent a clear model of the tool's output and its role in the workflow.

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: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the following section succinctly lists the return structure and provides an action pointer. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant 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?

Given that the tool has no parameters, is read-only, and has an output schema, the description covers all essential information: what the tool returns, the exact fields, status values, and how to use the output with sibling tools. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool successfully is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description appropriately mentions url_hash only as part of the output, not as an input. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description reinforces the data shape without needing to clarify any parameter details.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List every saved search and its progress.' This clearly states what the tool does and its scope ('every'), distinguishing it from sibling search tools like search_contacts or search_accounts. The addition of 'progress' adds a unique, purpose-defining detail not present in the title.

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 includes a practical usage pointer: 'Use a url_hash with export_results or get_results.' This tells the agent how the output of this tool feeds into other tools. It does not explicitly state when to prefer list_queries over alternatives, but the tool's self-explanatory nature and the explicit downstream routing partially compensate.

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