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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Health view' and the enumerated content make it clear this is a read-only aggregation, and the scope is confined to 'a single search', but it says nothing about permissions, freshness/caching, or whether the view triggers any computation or credit consumption.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier ('a single search') and the list of returned facets both earn their place and are read in the right order.

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 output schema, the description compensates well by listing the facets returned (states, signals/contacts, credits, events, learning insights). For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient; the only gap is identifier format and permission requirements.

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 coverage is 0% and there is one required parameter, search_id, which the schema leaves as a bare string. The phrase 'for a single search' implies the parameter selects one search but adds no format, expected ID form, or error behavior, so the description only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

Names a specific resource (a single signal search) and enumerates the content the view aggregates: states, signals/contacts produced, credits spent, recent events, learning insights. This distinguishes it from narrower siblings like sdr_signal_stats or sdr_learning_insights, which cover only one slice of the same data. It does not name those siblings explicitly, 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. 'Operator-level health view' implies a monitoring/monitoring-dashboard context, but the agent must infer when to reach for this versus sdr_get_search, sdr_run_states, or sdr_signal_stats.

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