search_saves

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: results are ranked best-first, capped at limit (max 25), and dates refer to publication time of the post. It stops short of permission/auth requirements or coverage caveats.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then operators, then result semantics — logical ordering with little waste. The operator list is dense but every item documents a real capability, so it earns its space.

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?

For a read-only search with no output schema, the description covers intent, input operators, and a basic notion of output (up to 25 ranked posts). The main omission is explicit linkage between the in-query operators and the seven structured parameters, which the schema alone makes ambiguous.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description documents that queries accept X-style operators (from:, is:bookmark/is:like, has:image/video/link/article, year:/since:/until:) whose value sets line up with the has, source, author, since, and until parameters, plus the limit ceiling. The gap is that it never states these can also be supplied as separate structured parameters, leaving the agent to infer the mapping.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (the user's saved X posts / bookmarks and likes), plus scope details like semantic search, OCR on images, and full Articles. This clearly distinguishes it from recent_saves, get_post, and library_overview without requiring the schema.

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 example ("that thread about pricing") tells the agent this is a natural-language recall tool rather than a structured query, which is useful context. However, it never explicitly routes to siblings — e.g., when to use recent_saves instead, or get_post to open a specific result — so the when-not guidance is missing.

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