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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does disclose the key behavioral traits: changes are asynchronous (~10 min for new hunters, ~30 min for budget-throttled ones, disabled hunters stop at next cycle), and enabled_sources is a full-list replacement. It does not mention required permissions, whether the search must be in a particular state, or what the call returns, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and the parameter modes, then the timing caveat, then the alternative tool. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what changes, how long it takes, and which sibling to use instead. What it omits (auth requirements, effect when the search is inactive, result shape) are secondary but non-trivial.

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, and it does: it distinguishes the incremental enable/disable pair from enabled_sources as a full replacement and points to sdr_list_hunters for valid source ids. Precedence if both enable and enabled_sources are supplied, and the semantics of search_id, remain unstated.

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?

States a specific verb (enable/disable) and resource (hunters on a search), plus anchors it to the wizard's Hunters step. The sibling landscape has several hunter tools (sdr_configure_hunter, sdr_pause_hunter, sdr_list_hunters) and this description makes clear it is the bulk on/off switch.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use enable/disable lists for incremental changes, enabled_sources for a wholesale list replacement, and 'sdr_pause_hunter' when the goal is an immediate stop rather than a disable. The condition that selects each alternative is stated rather than inferred.

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