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

Discloses critical behavioral traits beyond annotations: purely local operation, no Kamy API call, no storage or forwarding, no key required, never leaves a trace. Also clarifies that no verdict is returned. Annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) are consistent with this description.

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?

Four sentences, each adding value: core purpose, local nature, output limitations, usage guidance. No filler, information front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (sha256 digest and verify URL) and what it does not (verdict). For a single-parameter, read-only tool, this is complete. Agent has all information needed to use the tool correctly and chain it with verify_attestation.

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% and the schema description already explains the pdfBase64 parameter clearly. The description adds behavioral context (in-memory hashing, no storage) but does not significantly expand parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verbs ('hash', 'build') and resources ('PDF bytes', 'SHA-256 digest', 'verify URL'), clearly distinguishing the tool from siblings like verify_attestation. It states exactly what the tool does and what it does not do.

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 explains when to use this tool ('whenever you have the file itself') and when to use the alternative verify_attestation ('when someone has already given you a digest'). Provides clear sequential guidance for the verification workflow.

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