Save a search

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/destructive/idempotent hints. The description adds useful behavior: it persists across restarts, seeds with current listings, and is a 'one polite request to seed'. This expands beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 with no filler. The first sentence delivers the core action and consequence; the second adds persistence and the polite-request constraint. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is functionally clear but omits practical invocation details for a 12-parameter tool: how to construct the rest of the scope, whether all filters are optional, or what happens on re-saving an existing name. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, so this is adequate but not complete.

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 about 58%, but the description adds no parameter-specific guidance. It does not explain the search-scope fields, nor compensate for undocumented parameters like year, priceTo, priceFrom, condition, and countries. The word 'named' merely echoes the required name parameter already described in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Save a named search scope and seed it with the current listings'. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_saved_searches, check_saved_searches, and delete_saved_search by explaining the save-and-seed behavior and the later 'only NEW listings' reporting.

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 explains when to use the tool: to create a persistent named search so check_saved_searches later reports only new listings. It does not explicitly mention alternatives such as search_listings for immediate results or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a full 5.

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