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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds the key non-obvious behavioral trait: results are paginated and JARM matches are collision-prone, which warns against over-interpreting hits. This is genuine added context beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the caveat follows immediately, so every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers pagination and the collision caveat, but leaves the jarm_signature input format unaddressed for a tool whose only required parameter is that fingerprint.

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% for all three parameters. The description only implies that page/limit exist via '(paginated)' and gives no format or expected shape for jarm_signature (e.g., hash-length or structure), so the agent must guess at the required input format.

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 and resource: list scans matching a given JARM TLS fingerprint. The parenthetical '(paginated)' adds scope detail. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_jarm_signatures (enumerates signatures) and get_jarm_stats (aggregates), even without naming them.

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?

Provides real interpretive guidance: JARMs are shared across unrelated sites on large hosting platforms, so the agent should inspect commonalities among matches rather than treat a hit as attribution. It stops short of naming alternative tools (e.g., get_jarm_signatures) or stating explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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