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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden, and it does lead with 'Read-only' and disclose the composition of the payload including hunter health states. It omits cost/latency considerations of an aggregate scan, permission requirements, and whether paused or deleted searches are included in 'Every SDR search of the workspace'.

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 safety trait ('Read-only') is front-loaded and the remaining enumeration is dense but purposeful, with the UI-page anchor at the end. The dash-separated list is long for one sentence but every clause names distinct returned data, so little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully substitutes for a return-value spec by naming the sections returned. For a one-parameter aggregate read, that is nearly sufficient; only the missing pagination/size expectations and permission notes hold it back.

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 100% and the single 'days' parameter is documented as the daily series length with a 7-60 range. The description's 'signals (7/30 days)' refers to signal windows, not the days parameter, and risks being misread as the range for that argument, so it adds no correct meaning beyond the schema.

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 resource (workspace-wide SDR searches) and enumerates what the overview aggregates: signals, contacts, hot companies, hunter health, outreach, totals and a daily series. That is far more specific than the tautological title 'SDR processes overview'. It does not name the sibling it replaces (sdr_list_searches, sdr_health, sdr_outreach_summary), so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 '/vendo-sdr list page' mapping tells the agent this is the dashboard-equivalent aggregate view, which implies when to reach for it instead of the granular per-entity tools. But there is no explicit 'use this before drilling into sdr_get_search/sdr_health' instruction and no stated preconditions or exclusions.

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