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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds output content (totals, top serving domains, cache status) but no behavioral traits beyond annotations such as auth, rate limits, or mutation side effects. It does not contradict 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is dense but efficient; minor room for clearer separation of purpose vs parameter semantics.

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 simple search tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers purpose and two parameters. However, it omits semantics for limit and cdn_cache_status and lacks usage guidance, leaving gaps for an agent selecting among many sibling search tools.

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 must compensate. It explains cdn_type (with examples) and unpinned_only ('keeps scripts loaded without a fixed version'), but says nothing about limit or cdn_cache_status, leaving half the parameters without semantic guidance.

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 'Find' and resource 'JavaScript served from a given CDN', with examples ('cloudflare', 'jsdelivr'). The 'by_cdn' scope clearly differentiates it from sibling search_js_fingerprint_by_* tools.

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?

Implies usage when searching JavaScript by CDN, but offers no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., by_library, by_bundler) or when-not conditions. Examples of cdn_type values are given, but not usage context.

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