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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does declare 'Read-only', which is the single most important behavioral fact and is not encoded anywhere else. Beyond that it says nothing about the returned series shape, ordering, latency, or whether 'signals' and 'contacts' are counts or objects.

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 short sentences with the safety claim front-loaded and zero filler. The terseness flirts with under-specification rather than actual waste, so it holds up structurally.

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 3-param analytics tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits too much: the relationship between search_id and source, and any hint of what a daily data point contains. Two of three parameters and the entire return contract are left to inference.

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 only 33% (source is documented with a pointer to sdr_list_hunters), but the description supplies the days default of 14, which the schema does not encode and which materially affects results. search_id remains entirely unexplained — the agent must infer it is the SDR search and not the hunter id, despite 'for one hunter' wording.

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?

States a concrete resource and scope: 'signals and contacts per day for one hunter'. The 'for one hunter' qualifier is the key differentiator against the near-identically named sibling sdr_daily_by_hunter, but that sibling is never named, so the agent must infer the split from names alone.

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 hunter page chart' ties it to a specific UI context, implying the agent should call it when reproducing or reading that per-hunter chart. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no pointer to sdr_daily_by_hunter / sdr_recent_signals / sdr_signal_stats as alternatives for aggregate or cross-hunter views.

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