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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: a 1-credit cost and the fact that multiple algorithms can be requested in a single call. It does not cover error behavior (e.g. an unsupported algorithm name) or output format, though an output schema exists.

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 tight sentences plus a cost note, front-loaded with what is hashed and which algorithms are supported. The redundant 'Hash Generator: Hash Generator' lead-in and the title/name repetition are the only waste.

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 two-parameter, read-only compute tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers purpose, algorithm breadth, batching and cost. The only meaningful omission is how it relates to the adjacent HMAC/MurmurHash tools, which is a differentiation gap rather than a missing fact.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description contributes modest extra meaning by listing concrete algorithm names and clarifying that several digests can be produced in one request, but the accepted spelling and comma syntax for `algorithms` are still only 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?

States a specific verb and resource: computes cryptographic hashes of a text string, and names example algorithms (MD5, SHA-256, SHA-512, BLAKE2). It does not differentiate itself from hashing siblings such as HMACGenerator (keyed hashes) or MurmurHash (non-cryptographic hashes), so an agent must infer the difference from the names alone.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The agent is left to infer that this is the right tool for plain unkeyed digests rather than HMACGenerator, and nothing addresses cases like hashing binary data or needing a secret key.

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