SmartProspect: list saved searches

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explicitly enumerating safety properties: 'read-only: yes; may consume SmartProspect credits: no; creates or modifies remote state: no; can send email: no; destructive: no.' This provides detailed behavioral transparency, including credit consumption and email capabilities, which annotations alone do not convey.

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 efficiently structured: a clear opening sentence, a compact safety block, the endpoint, and a practical usage tip. Every sentence adds value, and the main purpose is front-loaded, making it easy for the agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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 the low complexity (two optional parameters), presence of an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It adds the endpoint URL and the crucial cross-tool hint about using the returned `id` as a `filter_id`, covering all necessary operational context.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for both limit and offset, including bounds and client-side guard rationale. The description does not add extra parameter-level detail, but it doesn't need to because the schema already provides sufficient semantics. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb 'list', the resource 'saved searches', and adds 'with their stored filter details' to specify the returned information. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_recent_searches and list_fetched_searches, which focus on different types of 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 provides clear usage context by stating 'Use the returned `id` as a `filter_id` elsewhere', which tells the agent how to leverage the output. It also notes 'Free and read-only', implying safe to call, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling list tools.

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