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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds important context: the operation costs 0.01 USD and requires explicit wallet authorization. It also clarifies that the hash is computed without normalization and does not prove authorship or authenticity. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent understand side effects.

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 compact and every sentence earns its place: purpose, use case, security caveats, and cost/auth requirement. It front-loads the core function and avoids filler.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters including payment and signature fields, no output schema, and non-trivial annotations. The description mentions price and wallet authorization but does not explain how payment_signature is used, what result_expires, idempotency_key, or result_signature do, or what format the digest output takes. An agent likely cannot invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameters. It only addresses the 'text' input ('supplied text') and mentions UTF-8 byte length, but does not explain result_expires, idempotency_key, result_signature, or payment_signature. These parameters are entirely undocumented, leaving an agent without guidance on how to supply them correctly.

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 states precisely what the tool does: calculate a SHA-256 digest and UTF-8 byte length of supplied text without normalization. This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling content-generation tools, none of which perform hashing operations.

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 gives a clear use case ('comparing exact text artifacts') and a clear non-use ('do not submit passwords or secrets'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this one, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when it is appropriate.

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