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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds 'paginated,' which is a behavioral detail, but this is also evident from the `limit`/`offset` parameters. It provides no additional context about auth, rate limits, or response behavior beyond what annotations imply.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to skim.

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 tool is simple, and the output schema covers return values, but the description lacks usage guidance and fails to distinguish from near-identical siblings like search_js_fingerprint_by_library_version. Given the extensive sibling list, this is incomplete.

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?

The input schema has no property descriptions, and the description only references 'library version' in passing. It does not explain that `library` and `version` are required string filters, nor the meaning of `limit`/`offset` beyond the word 'paginated.' This leaves the agent reliant on parameter names alone.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and identifies the resource 'JS fingerprints' with the qualifier 'by library version,' making the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from sibling search tools that filter by hash, library, or other criteria.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention that this is for version-specific lookup or suggest other tools for non-version queries. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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