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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety disclosure and explicitly states 'Nothing is deleted,' which is the key behavioral trait for a preview operation. It doesn't detail what the preview output shows, but the core non-destructive guarantee is clear.

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, front-loads the action, and has no filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

This simple tool is mostly complete: resource and non-destructive behavior are stated, and there's only one required parameter. However, with no output schema, the description doesn't explain what the preview shows (e.g., affected records, blockers), which leaves the return value ambiguous.

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%, and the description never mentions the 'id' parameter. While it's inferable that id identifies a Signal Search, the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 ('Show what would happen') and identifies the exact resource ('the Signal Search'), and distinguishes this preview from the actual deletion tool by stating 'Nothing is deleted.' It is clearly different from sibling preview_delete_* tools for other resources.

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 establishes the context: this is a dry-run preview before deleting a Signal Search. The explicit reassurance that nothing is deleted signals safe use. However, it doesn't name the alternative sdr_delete_search or state 'use this before deleting,' so I'm not giving a 5.

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