list_user_searches

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a 'paginated list filtered by status', which adds useful context about output format and filtering capability. However, it doesn't mention permissions needed, rate limits, or what specific data fields are returned, leaving behavioral gaps for 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 extremely concise at just two sentences, with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds key behavioral context about pagination and filtering. Every element earns its place, making it efficiently front-loaded.

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 read operation with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It mentions pagination and filtering but doesn't describe the structure of returned search objects or what 'user searches' actually contain. With no annotations and no output schema, more context about the return data would be helpful.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description mentions 'filtered by status' which aligns with the 'show' parameter, and 'paginated list' which aligns with the 'page' parameter, but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('List all user searches') and resource ('user searches'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_user_search' or 'list_keyword_searches', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a score of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_user_search' (singular) or 'list_keyword_searches'. It mentions filtering by status and pagination, but these are parameter details rather than usage context. No explicit when/when-not instructions are provided.

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