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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: the run is fire-and-forget, spends Anthropic and web_search credits for paid sources, and can target one or all hunters. It could mention return behavior or error cases, but the core behavioral traits are clearly surfaced.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by cost implications and the prerequisite call. Every sentence 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?

The description covers purpose, cost, and sequencing, which is strong given the small schema. However, because there is no output schema and no parameter documentation, the missing `source` semantics and lack of return/confirmation behavior leave meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool.

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 compensate. It implies `search_id` identifies the Signal Search and 'one (or all) hunters' hints at the `source` parameter, but it never explicitly maps parameters to those concepts or explains accepted values. An agent would still have to guess parameter semantics.

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 action ('kick'), the resource ('hunters for this Signal Search'), and the execution mode ('fire-and-forget immediate run'). It also references `sdr_preview_run_now`, which helps an agent distinguish this run tool from its preview sibling.

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?

It explicitly says 'Call after `sdr_preview_run_now`', giving clear sequencing, and 'fire-and-forget' communicates the expected interaction model. It does not explicitly rule out alternatives like `sdr_activate_search` or `sdr_resume_search`, but it gives enough context to use this tool appropriately.

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