search_saved_posts

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

With no annotations, the description provides useful context (cached posts, FTS5, searchable fields) but does not disclose implications of 'cached'—e.g., potential staleness, need for sync_saved_posts, or any rate limits. It adequately describes the operation but misses important behavioral caveats.

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?

Three concise sentences: first states the core function, second specifies searchable fields, third explains filters. No filler, front-loaded, and easy to scan.

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?

Given 8 parameters and no annotations, the description covers most parameters conceptually but lacks details on limit and exact date syntax. The cache behavior and sync dependency are also unexplained. An output schema exists, so return values are not required, but the gaps in parameter semantics and operational context prevent a higher score.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description partially compensates by explaining query, audience, publication, and date filters. However, it omits the 'limit' parameter and does not specify date formats or comparison operators, leaving significant gaps for parameter usage.

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 performs full-text FTS5 search across cached saved posts, listing the specific fields searched. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_saved_posts (listing) and get_saved_post (retrieving a single post).

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 indicates this is for full-text searching with filtering, and points to list_audiences for valid audience values. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus list_saved_posts/get_saved_post, but the search-oriented context makes the intended usage clear.

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