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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a persistent mutation of a search setting but never says whether the change is immediate, whether it affects past or only future ICP QA runs, whether it requires ownership permissions, or whether it can be reverted. '(default off)' is the only behavioral detail.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the default state is placed at the end as a useful qualifier. It is efficient but almost too terse for a mutating tool.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter toggle with no output schema, so a short description can be sufficient, but given zero annotation and zero schema-doc coverage the current text leaves an agent guessing about scope, effect on existing keywords, and reversibility. Adequate as a minimum, not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints that one parameter identifies 'the search' and that there is an on/off state, but it never names search_id (a UUID) or enabled, nor clarifies that both are required and that additional properties are rejected. Coverage gap of two undocumented params remains.

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 that this controls whether the ICP check rewrites the search's industry keywords automatically, which is more than a restatement of the name. However, it never explicitly frames the tool as a settings setter scoped to a specific search, so an agent could read it as a query or a run-time option rather than a toggle write. Sibling tools (sdr_icp_qa_run, sdr_icp_qa_history, sdr_icp_qa_rollback) are not referenced at all.

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 only guidance is '(default off)', which tells the agent the initial state but not when to turn it on or off, what prerequisites exist (e.g., must the search exist / be paused?), or how this relates to running the ICP QA (sdr_icp_qa_run). No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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