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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, read-only, open-world search, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: sort order ('newest analysis first') and the specific signals/fields returned. It does not mention pagination, which is the only notable gap.

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 dense sentences that lead with the resource and scope, then the filters and default. Every clause earns its place, though the output-field enumeration makes the first sentence long.

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 explained, yet the description helpfully summarizes them. With zero schema coverage and no required params, the description supplies almost everything an agent needs, missing only the limit parameter's meaning.

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 burden, and it largely does: it explains risk_level with example values ('high', 'critical'), gives min_risk_score a range (0-100), and clarifies has_eval. Only the limit parameter is left undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource — listing scans by the obfuscation signals in their runtime JavaScript — and names the output dimensions it surfaces. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely named sibling search_js_fingerprint_obfuscated.

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?

It explains the filtering semantics and the no-filter default ('the most recently analysed scans are listed'), which implies usage, but it never states when to prefer this tool over the many other search_* and get_js_* siblings. Usage is inferable rather than guided.

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