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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and 'Read-only, free' explicitly communicates no side effects and no cost. It also limits scope to a single SDR search, which prevents the agent from assuming it aggregates across all searches. It does not cover error handling or response format, but for a simple read operation this is solid.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The core meaning is front-loaded and it does not redundantly restate the input schema or title.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the essential semantics, but no output schema exists and the description does not explain what channels are represented or what sent versus queued counts mean operationally. It is adequate but leaves some context about return values and channel definitions to inference.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare 'search_id' string parameter. The phrase 'for one SDR search' clarifies that search_id identifies the SDR search, which is minimal but meaningful. It does not specify the ID format or how to obtain it, such as via sdr_list_searches.

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 clearly states the resource ('one SDR search') and the exact data returned ('per-channel sent and queued counts'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' but the noun-phrase construction is still specific and distinguishable from nearby SDR tools such as sdr_get_outreach or sdr_activity_feed.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sdr_get_outreach or sdr_activity_feed. The phrase 'Read-only, free' hints at safety but does not state use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this summary is the right choice.

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