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

Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts the annotations do not carry: the effective default score window (0.7–1.0, which differs from the schema's null defaults) and that results are paginated via page/per_page.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler, and the core filter description is front-loaded before the parameter detail. Slightly long but every clause conveys filter or default information.

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 return values need not be described, and the description covers filtering, pagination, and default behavior for a 7-parameter read tool. The only real gap is disambiguation from the sibling search_js_obfuscation, 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 must carry the load, and it does: it names min_score, max_score, classification, min_code_length, exclude_libraries, page, and per_page, plus the 0–1 range and effective defaults. What it lacks is unit/format detail for classification and min_code_length, which remain 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 and resource: 'List scanned JavaScript scored as obfuscated', and names the exact filter axes (score range, classification, code length). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling search_js_obfuscation, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The presence of the closely related sibling search_js_obfuscation makes this omission costly — nothing tells the agent which of the two to pick or when.

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