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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that hunters are immediately activated after creation and references the preview workflow, but it does not explain what activation entails, whether it consumes credits, or what side effects the agent should expect.

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 short, front-loaded with the core behavior, and avoids filler. The phrase 'pre-edited profile fields from sdr_preview_search' is somewhat vague, but overall the description earns its length.

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?

This is a complex 10-parameter creation tool with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to do substantial work. It covers required fields and immediate activation, but omits semantics for undocumented parameters, workflow guidance relative to preview/update/activate siblings, and clearer side-effect disclosure.

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 only 20%, and the description only lightly compensates by naming required fields and a few optional categories. Six parameters such as icp_summary, signal_weights, and relevant_topics remain undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving the agent to guess their meaning.

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 tool creates a Signal Search and immediately activates hunters, giving a specific verb, resource, and key side effect. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like sdr_preview_search or sdr_activate_search, but the combined create-and-activate wording makes its role reasonably distinct.

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 implies that this is a create-plus-activate operation and lists required and optional inputs, so the agent knows what must be supplied. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sdr_preview_search, sdr_activate_search, or sdr_update_search, and it mentions no exclusions.

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