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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of the report (prevalence counts, first/last seen, label, matching scripts), which goes somewhat beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about result size, pagination, or ordering behavior.

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, front-loaded with the lookup action before the optional-parameter notes. Slightly overloaded with output-field enumeration, but no filler.

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 enumerating return fields is partly redundant, while real gaps remain: the 'limit' parameter and date string formats are unexplained for a five-parameter, 0%-coverage schema.

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. It explains include_scans, from_date and to_date, but never mentions the 'limit' parameter or the expected date format, leaving two of five parameters undocumented.

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+resource+scope: 'Look up a JavaScript file by MD5 across the archive.' This clearly separates it from the sha1/sha256/fuzzy_hash siblings, though it says nothing to distinguish it from the near-duplicate search_jsfingerprints_by_md5.

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?

Usage is implied (you have an MD5 and want prevalence data across the archive), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to or away from any of the many sibling hash-search tools.

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