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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does establish the core behavioral context: 'List' signals a safe read operation, 'saved' scopes it to persisted scans, and 'authenticated Sift account' conveys the auth requirement. However, it discloses nothing about pagination, ordering, limits, or response shape, which a list operation typically involves.

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?

A single 10-word sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler. Every word earns its place: 'List' states the action, 'saved' scopes the resource, and 'authenticated Sift account' sets the access context.

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, zero-complexity list operation, the description is sufficient for correct invocation: no inputs are needed and the scope plus auth requirement are stated. Since no output schema exists, the return format (a list of saved scans) is implied but not detailed, which is a minor gap given how simple this tool is.

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 is empty with additionalProperties: false and zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the zero-parameter baseline of 4, the description has nothing it needs to add, and nothing is ambiguous.

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 ('List') and a precisely qualified resource ('scans saved to the authenticated Sift account'), making the operation unmistakable. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like run_scan, save_scan, and delete_scan by verb and the 'saved' qualifier, but it stops short of explicitly naming these alternatives.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternative routing is provided. Given siblings like run_scan, save_scan, delete_scan, and hitrate, an agent must infer when listing saved scans is the right choice rather than executing, saving, or deleting one. The context is implied at best.

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