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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output shape and possible state values, which conveys a read-style behavior, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-mutating, nor does it describe behavior for invalid or missing search_id. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key output type and enumerates the possible states, so an agent can quickly parse the tool's purpose.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the input scope and the output values. It could further clarify where search_id comes from or how to interpret missing sources, but these are minor gaps given the low complexity.

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?

The schema provides no description for the single search_id parameter, so the description's 'for a Signal Search' adds needed meaning by identifying what the ID refers to. It does not explain how to obtain a valid search_id or what formats are accepted, leaving a modest gap for a parameter with zero schema coverage.

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 deliverable: a per-source map of run states (running/paused/idle) for a Signal Search. It clearly identifies the resource and the kind of output, which distinguishes it from broad tools like sdr_health or sdr_get_search, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 intended use case is implied by the description: call this when you need run-state status per source for a Signal Search. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it, and no comparison to related tools like sdr_get_search, sdr_health, or sdr_pause_search.

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