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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, but only states that it is a composite ranking. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what the result items contain, how 'signal' is defined, or whether limit affects the number of companies returned.

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 a single concise sentence with the key concept front-loaded ('Composite heat ranking'). There is no filler or redundant phrasing. Brevity is used effectively, though it sacrifices useful parameter and return-value detail.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, and the description leaves out the return format, default pagination behavior, and the precise meaning of 'live signal'. An agent could infer that a ranked list of companies is returned, but it cannot reliably anticipate the response structure or how to use the result.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the 'limit' parameter, but it does not mention limit at all. The schema's min/max constraints provide some information, but the description adds no meaning about default limits or how limit interacts with the ranking.

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 identifies a specific resource (companies) and the ranking criterion (strongest live signal), which clearly conveys what the tool returns. It is distinguishable from sdr_recent_signals and sdr_signal_stats because it specifically produces a composite company-level heat ranking. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'retrieve' or 'list', making the operation slightly less direct.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sdr_* sibling tools. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or the specific scenario where a heat ranking is appropriate.

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