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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key traits: it is read-only and its default scope is merged across all searches when search_id is omitted. However, it says nothing about return format, pagination, rate limits, or what a 'signal' actually is, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 read-only nature and then the scoping rule. There is no filler, and every phrase contributes to the reader's understanding of what changes based on search_id.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It never explains what a 'signal' contains, what the response looks like, or how limit affects the result, so an agent lacks enough context to call it confidently.

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%, so the description must explain both parameters. It explains search_id's effect well (one search vs merged across all), but completely omits the limit parameter, including its 1–100 range and purpose.

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 states a specific resource ('Latest signals') and two scopes (one search via search_id, or merged across the workspace), making the core purpose clear. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from siblings like sdr_signal_stats or sdr_activity_feed, so an agent must infer the difference.

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?

Usage is implied: provide search_id for a single search, omit it for a workspace-wide merge. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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