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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: what the result contains (total matches, unique scans, first/last seen, prevalence label, matching scripts) and that include_scans enlarges the payload and the date params narrow the window.

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 the core action first and the return fields and parameter notes following after the colon/semicolon. Dense but waste-free, though the run-on structure packs return-value detail the output schema may already cover.

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 lookup with an output schema present, the description covers the essentials: what is looked up, what comes back, and how three of the five parameters behave. Only hash format expectations and limit semantics are left unaddressed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains include_scans ('adds the scans') and from_date/to_date ('limit the period'), but says nothing about hash_value's expected format (SHA-1 hex) or what limit controls or how it interacts with the date filters.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Look up a JavaScript file by SHA-1 across the archive,' with the scope (archive-wide) and output focus (prevalence) stated. It is distinguishable from generic fingerprint getters, but it never differentiates itself from the near-identical sibling search_jsfingerprints_by_sha1, which an agent would struggle to choose between.

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 only implied: the tool is for when you already have a SHA-1 hash and want prevalence stats. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative (e.g., search_js_fingerprint_by_md5/sha256 for other hash types), leaving selection between the many search_js_fingerprint_* siblings to inference.

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