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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, non-destructive, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that results are paginated via limit/offset and lists returned fields (scan, page URL, script URL), which is modest extra context, but since an output schema exists these fields are already structured data.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs the resource, filter, pagination mechanism, and return fields with zero filler. No wasted clauses.

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 values need not be re-explained, and annotations cover the safety/idempotency profile. The description covers filtering, pagination, and the nature of results, leaving only sibling disambiguation unaddressed.

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 does name all three parameters semantically (limit and offset for pagination, bundler as the filter), which is useful, but adds no format/syntax detail beyond the schema's own types 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?

States a specific verb (list/search), resource (archived script fingerprints), and filter axis (built with a given bundler). An agent can understand it returns fingerprints. However, it does not distinguish itself from the many near-identical siblings such as search_js_fingerprint_by_bundler, search_jsfingerprints_by_library, or search_jsfingerprints_by_sha256, so the singular/plural naming ambiguity is left unexplained.

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?

The description contains no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives despite a crowded family of sibling search tools. The only usage-relevant content is the pagination mention, which is structural, not contextual.

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