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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by stating the returned fields (target URL, overall risk, time) and a domain interpretation: the same hash across hosts usually indicates the same kit. It does not describe limit/pagination behavior, but the annotation coverage keeps the bar lower.

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 compact sentences with zero wasted words, and the core scoping phrase is front-loaded before the analyst insight. Every part of the description earns its place.

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?

The combination of annotations and an output schema covers safety and return structure, and the description adds useful interpretive context. However, it leaves gaps in usage routing and parameter format that an agent would need in order to use the tool confidently across siblings.

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 compensate for parameter meaning. It mentions 'this composite hash' but gives no format, provenance, or example for composite_hash, and it never explains the limit parameter at all. This leaves both parameters semantically thin beyond their names and defaults.

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 gives a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('scans whose runtime JavaScript behaviour has this composite hash'), making it clear what the tool retrieves. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like search_js_runtime_by_signature or search_js_runtime_similar, but the named hash key is specific enough to identify the tool's niche.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite conditions, and no mention of alternative tools. The reader can infer that the tool is for looking up a known composite hash, but the description never states when this should be preferred over search_js_runtime_by_signature or other runtime search tools.

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