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. 'List' implies a non-destructive read and 'active' narrows the scope, but the description does not disclose pagination, ordering, response format, or how 'active' is defined relative to paused/completed searches.

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, front-loaded with the main action and scope, followed by the optional filter. There is no redundant wording or filler.

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 simple one-optional-parameter list tool, the description is largely complete. It din't describe the return shape, and there is no output schema to fill that gap, but listing tools have predictable expectations. The main missing detail is clarifying what makes a Signal Search 'active'.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only source of parameter meaning. 'Optionally filter by agent' correctly explains the semantic of agent_id as an optional filter, which is sufficient for a single optional parameter. It does not say what format the agent identifier should take, but that is a minor gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clear resource ('active Signal Searches') with workspace scope, plus an optional filter by agent. This distinguishes it from singular lookup tools like sdr_get_search and from other SDR list tools by emphasizing 'active' searches.

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 description clearly indicates the tool is for listing active Signal Searches within the current workspace and notes the optional agent filter. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a straightforward list operation.

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