search_by_hash

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It makes clear the operation is a read-only search ('Find scans'), and adds useful context about pivoting from a hash to pages. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention any potential limitations (e.g., rate limits, whether results are limited by the 'size' parameter).

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core function, and adds a concise, valuable use case in the second sentence. Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 a simple hash-based search with an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the purpose, the input, and a recommended scenario well. Minor gap: it does not mention the optional 'size' parameter or any search constraints (e.g., time range), but those are partially addressed by the schema and output schema.

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 for parameter meaning. It explains the 'sha256' parameter clearly as a 'SHA-256 response hash' of a resource. However, it does not mention the 'size' parameter at all, even though its meaning might be inferred from its name and default value.

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 clearly states the tool finds scans that loaded a resource with a specific SHA-256 response hash, using the verb 'Find' plus a specific resource type. It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools (search_by_domain, search_by_ip, search_by_asn) by focusing on a hash pivot, and adds a strategic use case ('map a campaign').

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you have a known-bad file hash and want to find all pages serving it, often the fastest way to map a campaign. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, but the context is strong enough to guide appropriate usage.

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