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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose that the operation is read-only plus the kind of data returned (including pending/phone-only contacts). It does not cover auth/permission requirements, response shape, or size/pagination behavior for a tool returning contacts and daily rows.

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?

Front-loads 'Read-only' and then packs the returned artifacts into a single dense sentence with no filler. Every clause maps to actual returned content, though the embedded '(days 2–60, default 14)' makes it slightly harder to parse at a glance.

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 read-only detail tool with no annotations or output schema, the description usefully substitutes an output summary (run state, signals, daily counts, contacts, settings). It remains incomplete on two of four parameters and offers no sibling routing, which an agent needs in a crowded SDR tool namespace.

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 25%: search_id and contacts_limit are undocumented in both schema and description, and only the source enum has explicit guidance (pointer to sdr_list_hunters). The description adds one useful datum beyond the schema — the days default of 14 — but does not describe the 1–200 contacts_limit bound or search_id semantics, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 clear resource and scope — one hunter belonging to a search — and enumerates exactly what is returned: run state, 30-day signals, daily signal/contact counts, contacts found, settings. It does not explicitly name sibling tools it replaces (e.g., sdr_hunter_daily, sdr_run_state, sdr_configure_hunter), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 guidance. It never says to call this instead of sdr_list_hunters, sdr_hunter_daily, or sdr_run_state, nor what prerequisite (e.g., knowing search_id and hunter source) an agent must satisfy. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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