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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: results are paginated via limit/offset and drawn from archived fingerprints, but it omits ordering, max page size, and whether an empty result is possible.

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 operation, pagination, filter, and returned fields with no filler. It is efficient, though the returned-field list is arguably redundant given an output schema exists.

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?

For a simple read-only search with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it explains the filter, pagination, and result shape. The remaining gap is distinguishing this tool from the many sibling hash-search tools.

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 names limit and offset (pagination) and clarifies that hash_value is a SHA-256, but gives no default values, acceptable range, or offset semantics for the three parameters.

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 ('Paginated list of archived script fingerprints') plus the filter dimension (SHA-256). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as search_js_fingerprint_by_sha256 or get_js_fingerprints, leaving the singular/plural distinction 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite a dense cluster of near-identical hash-search siblings. Usage is only implied by the name and the mention of SHA-256.

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