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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results come with totals, a format breakdown and average size, plus pagination — useful aggregation context, though some of this overlaps the existing output schema. Nothing about rate limits or scope restrictions is added.

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 dense sentence leads with the action and resource, then layers optional filters and the return shape. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 read-only search with an output schema present, the description covers the operation, five of six parameters, and the response shape. The significant remaining gap is disambiguation from the near-duplicate sibling search_jsfingerprints_by_bundler, which the description never addresses.

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 most of the work: it names the bundler concept with concrete examples (webpack, vite, rollup, esbuild), and covers bundle_format, min_confidence ('detection confidence'), page and per_page. Only include_libraries goes unexplained in both schema and description.

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 ('Find JavaScript bundles built with a given bundler') and enumerates bundler values, so the core operation is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-identically named sibling search_jsfingerprints_by_bundler, which an agent will struggle to choose between from the name/description alone.

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?

The description notes that bundle format and confidence are optional filters, but never states when to reach for this tool versus search_jsfingerprints_by_bundler, search_js_fingerprint_by_library, or any of the other fingerprint searches. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are given.

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