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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and an output schema documents the return shape, so the description's enumeration of hashes and size metrics is partly redundant. The one genuinely additive piece is explaining that the include_* flags extend the result with function lists, headers, or ML vectors. No auth, rate-limit, or pagination behavior is disclosed.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: purpose and return contents first, flag behavior second, usage hint third. No filler, though the detailed hash enumeration in sentence one is longer than strictly needed given the output 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 four-parameter read-only tool with a full output schema and strong annotations, the description supplies enough to call it correctly: what comes back, what each flag adds, and what scan_id is. The remaining gap is pagination/result-size behavior and explicit routing away from the many search_js_fingerprint_* siblings.

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 carries the full burden, and it does map all three include_* options to concrete content (function lists, HTTP headers, ML vector details) while identifying scan_id as a ScanMalware scan UUID. It does not state that the flags default to null/off, so it compensates well but not completely for the coverage gap.

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 (List) and resource (JavaScript files loaded by a scanned page) and enumerates the fingerprint components returned. It implicitly separates itself from the search_js_fingerprint_by_* siblings by being keyed on a scan, but never names a sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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?

"Useful for collecting script hashes to search for elsewhere" gestures at the follow-up workflow (the search_by_hash/search_jsfingerprint_* family) but stops short of naming an alternative or stating when to prefer this over get_jsfingerprint or search_js_fingerprint_by_sha256. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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