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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it implies a deterministic, side-effect-free digest operation but never says so outright. It omits practically relevant behavior such as output encoding (hex vs base64), case of the digest, and whether the algorithm defaults are safe.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the algorithm parenthetical after; nothing is wasted. The parenthetical is mildly redundant with an already-complete schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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, no-output-schema utility this is close to sufficient, since the operation is conceptually self-evident. But it leaves the return value's format (digest string) and the sibling disambiguation unaddressed, which are the two things an agent would still wonder about.

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% and both parameters are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description's algorithm list is actually incomplete relative to the schema — it names SHA-256, SHA-512 and MD5 but omits SHA-384 and SHA-1 — adding no meaning beyond the schema and slightly undercutting it.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Cryptographic hash of text') and enumerates the supported algorithms, so an agent can tell it is a digest generator. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the many near-identical siblings such as hash_text, hash_compare, crypto, and entropy.

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 clause 'fingerprint data or verify integrity' implies intended use cases, which is better than nothing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance and no routing to hash_compare (for comparing digests) or hash_text, leaving the agent to guess among four overlapping hash-related tools.

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