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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose read-only status and the aggregation window/default, which is useful. It does not disclose authorization needs, response shape, rate limits, or whether results are scoped to a search or hunter, leaving key behavior unspecified.

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 are front-loaded with read-only status and the metric list, with no filler. The terseness reflects missing scope details rather than structural verbosity.

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 two-parameter read-only stats tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete: it covers days and metric categories but omits the required search_id's meaning and return structure. Sibling differentiation and scope (search vs hunter) are also absent.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents days well (1–90, default 30), adding the default absent from the schema, but never mentions the required search_id or what UUID scope it represents, leaving one of two parameters—and the only required one—unexplained.

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 gives a concrete read-only stats resource and enumerates metrics (fresh signals, signals and contacts by source) over a bounded window. It does not distinguish this from analytics siblings like sdr_recent_signals, sdr_overview, sdr_hunter_daily, or sdr_daily_by_hunter, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Only 'Read-only' and 'KPI cards' imply dashboard-style aggregation; no when-to-use criteria, prerequisites, or alternatives are named. An agent has no guidance on choosing this over sdr_recent_signals, sdr_daily_by_hunter, or sdr_overview.

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