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

Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, so the description only needs to add extra behavioral context. It adds the q minimum length constraint, which is useful, but it does not disclose pagination behavior or search_type semantics. This is acceptable but minimal.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is under-specified given the tool's complexity, so it is not perfectly tailored.

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 four parameters, no schema descriptions, and many sibling tools, the description is far too minimal to guide correct usage. The output schema helps with return values, but the description fails to explain the search scope and the meaning of search_type, making the tool hard to use correctly.

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 compensate. It only explains q's minimum length, leaving search_type, page, and limit undefined. search_type, which defaults to 'all', especially needs semantic explanation because it has no enum or description in 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?

The description states the tool searches scans, but it lacks specificity about what scans are and how the search works. It does not distinguish itself from the many sibling search tools like search_by_ip or search_js_fingerprint, so the purpose is only partially clear.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. The q length constraint is a prerequisite, but the description does not explain the intended use case or exclude other search types, leaving the agent to guess among many similar tools.

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