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. It does disclose one useful trait — only 'active' searches are returned — but says nothing about pagination, result limits, ordering, or authorization requirements, so most read-operation behavior must be guessed.

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 no filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded ahead of the optional filter. It is appropriately sized, though it leaves room for a routing clause without becoming bloated.

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 zero-required-parameter list tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials. It nonetheless omits how results are returned or bounded and never distinguishes itself from sdr_get_search, so it is only minimally 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 does clarify that agent_id is optional and filters by agent, which is meaningful context, but adds no format details (ID vs name) beyond that single phrase.

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 a specific verb and resource (list Signal Searches) and adds workspace scope plus an active-status qualifier. It's clear on its own, but it never explicitly contrasts with close siblings like sdr_get_search (single fetch) or the pause/resume/activate search tools, leaving that distinction to be inferred from the verb.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. 'Optionally filter by agent' is parameter behavior, not usage guidance. An agent gets no signal about when this list is preferable to sdr_get_search or how it relates to the other sdr_* search tools.

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