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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully states 'Read-only' and the default window of 14 days, but says nothing about what a 'sparkline' returns, whether results are aggregated per hunter or interleaved, what happens with hunts having no signals, or any auth/rate considerations.

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?

Two tight sentences with the read-only qualifier and the range/default front-loaded. The only inefficiency is the opaque word 'Station', which spends space without adding meaning.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage on two parameters, the definition should explain the return shape and how it differs from sibling signal tools. Neither is present, so an agent cannot confidently pick or interpret this call.

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 for both parameters. It does add a meaningful default (14) and the semantic window for 'days' beyond the min/max bounds, but the required search_id — the one parameter that determines which search's hunters are covered — is never explained.

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?

It conveys the resource and rough shape (signals per day, per hunter, scoped to a search), but 'Station sparklines' is unexplained jargon and the tool is never distinguished from the near-identical sibling sdr_hunter_daily or from sdr_recent_signals / sdr_signal_stats. An agent would have to guess which daily-signal tool to call.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion, and no named alternative, despite a dense cluster of closely related siblings (sdr_hunter_daily, sdr_signal_stats, sdr_recent_signals, sdr_list_hunters). Nothing tells the agent how to choose this over those.

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