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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core function without revealing what the output looks like, limitations of the guess, or any edge cases. The agent has no idea what to expect after calling.

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 description is a single concise sentence with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly, though it is arguably too terse to be fully useful.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify the expected input format, the output structure, or any usage context. An agent cannot reliably know how to invoke it correctly without additional information.

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?

The schema has a single parameter 'q' with no description and 0% coverage. The description does not explicitly explain that 'q' is the hash string, nor does it provide format requirements. The agent is left guessing what input is expected.

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 clearly states the verb 'Guess' and the resource 'hash algorithm', and mentions the method (length/charset). It is specific and distinguishes itself from many sibling tools by focusing on identification from characteristics, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like checksum, hashtext, or circlhash. There are no exclusions or context cues, leaving the agent to infer usage from the vague purpose.

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