Check saved searches

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals that results are incremental (only since the last check) and that there is rate-limit etiquette ('One polite request per search'). This complements the annotations, which only flag non-read-only, non-idempotent behavior. It doesn't explicitly disclose whether the check advances the last-check timestamp, but the incremental semantics strongly imply state tracking.

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, with the core behavior stated first. Each of the three sentences earns its place: main action, scheduling/etiquette context, and single-search usage. There is no filler or redundancy with the schema.

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 tool with one optional parameter and a present output schema, the description covers the essential operational contract: what it does, what it returns (new listings), how to limit scope, and the appropriate usage pattern (scheduled agent). The output format is presumably defined by the existing output schema, so no return-value details are missing. Nothing an agent needs to decide when to use this tool is omitted.

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 schema already fully documents the sole optional parameter with the description 'Check just this saved search; omit to check all.' The main description repeats this idea ('Pass name to check a single search'), but adds no new semantic detail about name format or behavior when omitted. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate and the description does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding.

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 re-runs saved searches and reports only new listings since the last check, which is a specific verb+resource pairing. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_saved_searches or save_search, which merely list or create searches. The scope of output is also precise: only newly appeared listings.

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?

It explicitly frames the tool as 'ideal for a scheduled agent,' giving a concrete usage context. It also explains the single-search use case with 'Pass name to check a single search.' However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for different needs, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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