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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description is not responsible for the safety profile. It adds useful operational context: the algorithm family, non-cryptographic nature, performance characteristic, and credit cost.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the description is short and scannable. The repeated tool name in 'MurmurHash: MurmurHash generates...' is slightly redundant, but the remaining text earns its place.

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 hash-generation tool with full parameter schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides enough context to select and invoke it correctly. Algorithm, intended use, exclusion condition, and cost are all covered.

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 100%, so seed, text, and variant are already documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond those schema-level definitions, making the baseline score appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: generates hashes using the MurmurHash3 algorithm. It also distinguishes the tool as non-cryptographic, which separates it from cryptographic hash siblings, though it does not name a specific alternative tool.

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?

It gives explicit use cases such as hash tables, data partitioning, bloom filters, and checksums, and it clearly excludes cases where cryptographic security is needed. It does not explicitly route the agent to a named sibling for cryptographic hashing.

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