list_searches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the returned fields and that it lists only active searches, compensating for the absence of an output schema.

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?

Front-loads the core action and return contents efficiently. The trailing note about referencing it as 'DC: ...' is invocation boilerplate that does not help tool selection, a minor blemish on an otherwise tight description.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the action, scopes it to active searches, and enumerates the returned fields. An agent has everything it needs to call it correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the fact that it operates on all active searches with no filtering options.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all active searches') and enumerates the fields it returns (IDs, types, patterns, status, runtime). It names list_sessions as an analogous sibling but does not explicitly distinguish itself from search siblings like start_search, stop_search, or get_more_search_results.

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?

'Useful for managing multiple concurrent searches' implies a context of use, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance (e.g., versus get_more_search_results or stop_search) and no exclusions. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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