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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that results include a total and matching scripts and that include_deprecated/group_by_url 'adjust' results, but does not say how they adjust them, and an output schema already documents the return shape.

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 tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the scope constraint leads and the use case trails. Minor cost is listing parameter names that are not actually explained.

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?

Rich annotations and an output schema remove the need to describe safety or return format, and the core purpose is clear. Still missing how include_deprecated and group_by_url change results and any sense of limit/pagination, which an agent needs given the 0% schema coverage.

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 parameter burden. It implicitly defines library and version as one exact version pair and name-checks include_deprecated and group_by_url, but explains neither their effect nor limit at all, leaving three of five parameters semantically opaque.

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 (scanned JavaScript detected as one exact library version), and the qualifier 'exact version' sharply distinguishes it from the by-library sibling that has no version constraint. An agent can pick this over search_js_fingerprint_by_library without opening either schema.

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?

Offers a motivating scenario ('finding sites running a vulnerable version') but never names the alternative or the condition that selects it over search_js_fingerprint_by_library or the hash-based siblings. Usage is implied by the use case, not spelled out.

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