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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It adds security properties of sha1/md5, which is valuable, but it does not disclose output format (hex/base64) or deterministic nature, which are relevant for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then algorithm list, then caveat. Every phrase earns its place, no redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool the essential calling information is present. However, with no output schema and no behavioral annotations, the lack of any statement about the returned digest format leaves an agent to infer output, a meaningful gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the compatibility-vs-security context for the algorithm parameter, which the schema's bare enum-like text does not convey. Input semantics are already clear from 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?

States a specific verb ('compute'), resource ('hash digest'), and input ('input string'), and enumerates supported algorithms. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like verify and jwt_decode by focusing on digest generation.

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?

Provides explicit qualifiers for sha1/md5 ('only for compatibility/checksum use cases') and directs 'anything security-relevant' to sha256. Does not explicitly name alternative tools, but gives clear conditional guidance for algorithm selection.

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