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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. 'Fetch' clearly signals a read-only retrieval operation, and listing 'profile, hunters, and contact counts' discloses the scope of data returned. It does not discuss error behavior or authorization, but for a simple get-by-id tool the core behavioral surface is adequately disclosed.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the action, the target resource, and the returned components without redundant words. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no filler or restating of the tool name.

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, one required parameter, and no output schema, the description gives enough for an agent to understand what will be fetched and what data is included. It could go slightly further by noting what happens if an id is invalid or how the id is obtained, but these are minor gaps for a simple fetch operation.

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 only defines id as a required string with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must give the parameter meaning. 'by id' plus 'one Signal Search' establishes that the id is a Signal Search identifier, which is the key semantic needed. It does not specify the id format or source, but for a single trivial parameter this is sufficient.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Fetch one Signal Search by id' and lists notable returned contents (profile, hunters, contact counts). It is clear and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling search-related tools such as sdr_list_searches or sdr_get_agent_signal_profile, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'by id' implies this tool is for retrieving a single known Signal Search rather than listing or creating searches, which gives an implicit usage context. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisite steps such as obtaining the id from sdr_list_searches.

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