list_searches

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it returns 'a paginated list' (important for handling large result sets), specifies what data is included ('past search queries with timestamps and result counts'), and implies read-only behavior through 'List' and 'Returns'. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or data retention policies, but provides solid core behavioral information.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured: two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, scope, and key behavioral characteristics. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 list tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains what's returned (past search queries with timestamps and result counts) and that results are paginated, which compensates for the lack of output schema. It could potentially mention authentication scope or data freshness, but covers the essentials well.

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 (cursor for pagination, limit for results per page). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't need to since schema coverage is complete. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'List previous similarity searches performed on your account' - a specific verb ('List') and resource ('previous similarity searches'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_media' (which performs searches) by focusing on historical search queries rather than executing new searches.

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 implies usage context through 'previous similarity searches' and 'past search queries', suggesting this is for retrieving history rather than performing operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'search_media' or provide any exclusion criteria.

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