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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether this is a read-only polling call, whether it requires the search to be active, or how frequently it can be called. The only behavioral signal is the enumeration of possible state values, which is mild value but far short of what a zero-annotation tool needs.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the most important concept (per-source run state) is front-loaded. It reads as a noun fragment rather than a complete statement, which slightly blunts readability.

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, the description usefully discloses the return shape (a map keyed by source, valued by running/paused/idle). However, against a required-but-undocumented parameter, no annotations, and no guidance on timing or alternatives, it remains thin for an agent to call 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% and there is one required parameter, search_id, which the description never mentions. The phrase 'for a Signal Search' weakly implies the parameter's meaning, but format, source (e.g. from sdr_list_searches), and requiredness are left entirely undocumented.

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 names a specific resource (per-source run state) and its domain (a Signal Search), and even enumerates the possible state values (running / paused / idle). An agent can tell this apart from sdr_get_search or sdr_health, though the description never explicitly contrasts those siblings. The verb is only implied via the title.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus sdr_get_search, sdr_health, or sdr_activity_feed, and no prerequisites are given. The agent must infer usage from the noun phrase alone.

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