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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does disclose two key traits: 'Read-only' establishes the safety profile and 'free' signals no credit cost. It does not describe the return shape or whether channel sets are fixed, but for a simple counter tool this is meaningful disclosure beyond structured data.

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 zero waste; the core purpose and the read-only/free traits are front-loaded. Nothing extraneous.

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-param, no-output-schema read tool the description is minimally adequate, but with no output schema it should clarify what 'per-channel' covers (e.g. email vs LinkedIn) and the counter structure to be fully 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% for the single search_id parameter, so the description must compensate. 'For one SDR search' implies search_id identifies an SDR search, which adds meaning, but gives no format hint or note on how to obtain the id.

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+resource: 'per-channel sent and queued counts for one SDR search.' An agent can tell this returns counters, not outreach content or a search record, distinguishing it from siblings like sdr_get_outreach or sdr_get_search. It lacks explicit differentiation from the closer analytics siblings (sdr_activity_feed, sdr_signal_stats).

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 indication of when to call this versus the many other SDR read tools (sdr_get_outreach, sdr_activity_feed, sdr_list_searches). Usage is only implied by the word 'summary'. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or named alternatives.

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