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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so: it declares read-only, explains the credit model (no per-run charge; 1 credit per ICP-fitting buying signal, 5 per usable contact, doubled on paid-data hunters), and describes the returned fields. These are the exact behavioral facts an agent needs before recommending this call downstream.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with 'Read-only' and the resource definition, then usage, then cost. The credit-cost sentence is dense but earns its place because billing behavior is not otherwise discoverable, though it could be trimmed slightly without loss.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and flag types. Combined with the usage routing and cost model, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the schema is empty and coverage is 100%. Baseline of 4 applies, and the description rightly spends no space on nonexistent inputs.

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 specific verb and resource ('The 24 hunter sources a search can run') and enumerates exactly what each record contains (UI name, what it looks at, opt-in/paid-engine/LinkedIn-budget flags, manual-run capability, read search fields). This is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sdr_hunter_detail and sdr_search_hunters.

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?

Gives a concrete usage scenario with a worked example: map a user-named hunter ('Competitor Switching') to its id ('g2_reviews') before calling sdr_set_hunters / sdr_configure_hunter / sdr_run_now. It does not explicitly contrast with the nearby siblings sdr_search_hunters or sdr_hunter_detail, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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