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

The description discloses than partial updates are allowed, which is useful behavioral information, but it did not cover auth requirements, error behavior, idempotency, or side effects. Moreover, the description lists editable fields (name, enabled_sources, target_regions) that are absent from the input schema with additionalProperties false, creating a conflict that undermines transparency. With no annotations to carry the safety/side-effect burden, this gap is significant.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the operation and resource, lists key fields, and adds the partial-update caveat. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 annotations, no output schema, and one required parameter, the description should give enough context for correct invocation. It fails to mention the required id, the request body structure, or the mismatch between allowed schema properties and the advertised fields. An agent could easily make an invalid call based on the description alone.

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 description adds meaning beyond the bare schema by naming editable fields, but it does not explain the required 'id' parameter or types/formats for fields, and it conflicts with the schema's additionalProperties false restriction. It partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage but not cleanly.

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 uses a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('Signal Search') and enumerates concrete editable fields: name, enabled_sources, target_regions, profile fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sdr_create_search, sdr_delete_search, sdr_get_search, and sdr_regenerate_search.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'Partial updates fine' is an instruction on how, but it does not identify when to choose sdr_update_search over sdr_create_search, sdr_pause_search, or sdr_resume_search. The agent is left to infer from the name.

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