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

With no annotations, the description states 'Read-only, free', which communicates no side effects and no cost. It also discloses ordering ('newest first') and the fact that it mirrors the dashboard ticker. It does not describe response shape or error behavior, but for a read-only feed the key behavioral risks are covered.

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 sentence front-loads the core purpose, then adds ordering and a useful dashboard comparison. 'Read-only, free' is compact and provides high-value behavioral info without waste.

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 tool's low complexity, two parameters, and no output schema, the description gives enough context for correct invocation: it identifies the target search, the event types, ordering, and safety profile. It could mention what the returned events look like, but the 'same ticker the dashboard shows' provides grounding.

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 coverage is 50%: 'limit' has a default but no semantic explanation, and 'search_id' has no description. The phrase 'for one SDR search' adds meaning to search_id, and the schema covers limit's default. Neither parameter is explained in depth, so the description only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 names a specific resource ('Recent discovery + outreach events for one SDR search') and a clear behavior ('newest first'). It is distinct from generic feed tools and from siblings like sdr_recent_signals by scoping explicitly to a single search.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when you need the recent activity feed for one SDR search, matching the dashboard ticker. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the scoping is strong enough to guide selection.

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