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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it does disclose the output encoding (hex), which is genuinely useful behavioral context, and algorithm choice is deterministic/one-way by implication. However, it says nothing about determinism guarantees, input encoding (UTF-8?), or whether the input is treated verbatim, which matters for a hashing tool.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the algorithm options and return format packed into a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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, side-effect-free utility with no output schema, the description covers purpose, options, and return format adequately. Minor gaps remain around input encoding and the default-algorithm behavior, which is only visible in the schema's default field.

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 0%: the `text` parameter has no description and `algorithm` has only an enum and a default. The description restates the three algorithm values already present in the enum and adds output format, but does not clarify the `text` parameter's expected encoding or the default algorithm behavior.

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 ("Compute a cryptographic hash of text"), enumerates the supported algorithms, and specifies the return encoding (hex). It is unambiguous against siblings like encode_text, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., encode_text for reversible encoding) and no preconditions or exclusions stated. The purpose is clear enough that usage is inferable, but the description offers nothing explicit.

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