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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful behavioral detail by listing the allowed algorithm values (md5/sha1/sha256/sha512), which are not captured as enums in the schema. However, it does not state the output form (e.g., hex digest) or other traits; the output schema may cover return values, but the description itself is thin.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the verb and resource come first, followed by the algorithm choices. Every word contributes to the caller's understanding, making this an appropriately sized description for a simple tool.

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 straightforward two-parameter hashing utility with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter values. It is not exhaustive (e.g., no mention of output encoding or algorithm case sensitivity), but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, it is adequately complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so by naming the algorithm options for 'algo' and indicating that 'text' is the string to hash. This gives an agent enough semantic information to populate both required parameters, though it could be more explicit about text's role.

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 uses a specific verb ('Hash') and resource ('a string'), and it enumerates the supported algorithms, which makes the operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but none of the siblings perform hashing, so the purpose is clear.

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 description implies the usage context: hash a string using one of the listed algorithms. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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