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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: it discloses pagination, the 3-character minimum on q, and the default of search_type. It stops short of explaining result ordering or page-size behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by constraints and result contents. The parenthetical about pagination and the result-field list are dense but each clause carries information; no filler sentences.

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 the description is not obligated to enumerate return fields, yet it does so helpfully alongside pagination and the query constraints. The one meaningful gap is that an agent cannot tell what values search_type accepts beyond the default 'all', which weakens the narrowing behavior the description advertises.

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 parameter burden. It clarifies q (searches URL, domain or title; minimum 3 characters) and search_type (default 'all'), and signals pagination, but never enumerates the valid search_type values and does not describe page/limit defaults. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 ("Search the archive of public scans") and names the searchable fields (URL, domain, page title), which separates it from full-text tools like search_semantic and from scan-by-ID tools like get_scan_result. It does not, however, explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the field list (use this when you have free text about a URL/domain/title) and the minimum-length constraint on q hints at when it is appropriate. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative such as search_similar_scans or search_by_ip, leaving selection to inference.

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