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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by disclosing that results are joined with 'the scans and scripts they appear in' and that output is paginated, which the annotations do not convey.

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?

One tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and result scope plus pagination trailing behind a semicolon. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

With rich annotations and an output schema present, the description only needs to frame selection and behavior; it covers what is returned and pagination. It stops short of stating uniqueness of the hash or guidance on iterating pages, but is essentially complete.

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: it says code_hash must be an exact hash and that limit/offset drive pagination, but gives no defaults, bounds, or ordering behavior. It partially compensates but leaves limit/offset semantics thin.

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 ('Find code segments with this exact code hash across the archive') and the 'exact' qualifier implicitly separates it from the normalized-hash and fuzzy-hash siblings in the same family. An agent can select it without reading the schema.

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 by the exact-hash lookup framing, but the description never states when to prefer this over search_js_segments_by_normalized_hash or the fingerprint hash searches, nor any exclusions. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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