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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful traits - output formats (hex and base64) and the client-side Web Crypto implementation - but says nothing about determinism, side effects, input limits, or whether anything is transmitted.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no significant padding. The final sentence on Web Crypto is marginal but relevant; slight redundancy between 'hash a value' and 'generate a digest'.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by stating the return formats (hex and base64). It is nearly complete for a stateless compute tool, though it omits the rendered-card nature implied by the 'locale' parameter.

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 all three parameters are already documented. The description restates the algorithm names but adds no meaning beyond the schema and never explains the 'locale' card-rendering parameter. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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) and resource (cryptographic hash digests) plus the exact algorithms supported, so the agent knows precisely what this tool does. It does not name or distinguish itself from any sibling, though none of the listed siblings directly compete on hashing.

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?

Explicitly names the triggering intents ('hash a value, verify a checksum, or generate a digest'), giving the agent clear context for selection. There are no exclusions or alternative tools named, but none are needed given the absence of a competing sibling.

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