list_expert_searches

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

The description mentions pagination and filtering by status, which are key behaviors. But it does not specify ordering, rate limits, or that it is a read-only operation. Without annotations, more detail would improve transparency.

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 sentences efficiently convey the core functionality. The description is front-loaded with the action and result, but some details could be added without sacrificing conciseness.

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 simple list tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basics. However, it leaves questions about default sorting and what exactly is returned (e.g., full objects vs. summaries).

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 context about filtering by status and pagination. However, it does not elaborate on the 'page' parameter beyond what the schema states.

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 it lists expert searches, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_expert_search or list_keyword_searches. However, it could be more explicit about the scope (e.g., all searches in the system).

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It does not differentiate from other list tools like list_keyword_searches, leaving the agent to infer context.

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