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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The terms 'health view' and 'dashboard' imply a read-only operation, and the listed contents reinforce that it aggregates existing data. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-mutating behavior, mention access requirements, or describe how the data is produced or scoped.

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 one efficient sentence, front-loads the core concept ('Operator-level health view'), and uses a colon to list the payload components. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only dashboard, the description covers the essential domain and content categories. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the actual return structure, possible empty states, and any special behavior unsurfaced. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema has no description for search_id, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'for a single search' clarifies that search_id refers to one specific search, but it does not explain where to find the ID, its format, or any validation requirements. It adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 identifies the tool as an operator-level health view for a single search and enumerates the data it surfaces (states, signals/contacts, credits, events, learning insights). It is distinct enough from sibling tools like sdr_activity_feed or sdr_signal_stats by framing this as a combined dashboard, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get'.

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 the tool is for getting a consolidated health overview of one search, which gives a clear usage context. However, it does not state when to prefer this over sibling tools like sdr_run_states, sdr_signal_stats, or sdr_activity_feed, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative routing guidance.

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