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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context (paginated via limit/offset; each record includes scan, page URL and script URL), which is more than the annotations provide, though it says nothing about ordering, total counts, or result-size limits.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the paginated-list framing and the key scope constraint. Nothing is wasted, though it compresses several ideas into one clause chain.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still covers purpose, pagination and parameter meaning for a low-complexity read-only search. The main gap is disambiguation from the singular normalized-hash sibling.

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 does explain that limit/offset drive pagination and clarifies that hash_value is a formatting-independent normalized hash, giving meaning to all three parameters beyond the bare schema titles.

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 (paginated list/search) and resource (archived script fingerprints by normalized hash) and defines the hash as formatting-independent. It is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling search_js_fingerprint_by_normalized_hash (singular), nor from the other hash-variant search tools.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not guidance is present, and no alternative sibling is named despite the dense cluster of hash-based search tools (md5, sha1, sha256, fuzzy_hash, normalized_hash). Usage is only implied by the parameter concept.

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