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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: results include the scans and scripts the segments appear in, and pagination is available via limit/offset. It does not mention rate limits or ordering.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the lookup key, the scope, the returned relations, and the pagination mechanism with no filler.

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 an output schema present, return-shape detail is not required, and the description covers key, scope, related entities, and pagination. It is essentially complete for a 3-param read-only search, only missing normalized_hash format guidance.

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 carries the burden. It only names limit/offset for pagination without defaults or bounds, and gives a partial gloss of normalized_hash ('formatting-independent') but no format. Marginal compensation over the schema.

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 (find) and resource (code segments) keyed by normalized hash, and clarifies the 'formatting-independent' meaning, which differentiates it from the plain search_js_segments_by_hash sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling as the alternative.

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 name and the formatting-independence note, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to search_js_segments_by_hash for exact-hash lookups. The agent must infer the choice.

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