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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers nothing. It does not state whether the operation is deterministic and read-only, which digest algorithm is the default, whether the input is hashed as text or bytes, or what form the output takes (hex, base64).

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 words are technically concise but this is under-specification rather than economy. There is nothing to front-load and no information to structure.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and full schema-description gaps, this description leaves the agent unable to call the tool correctly. Critical details such as algorithm naming convention, default algorithm, and output encoding are entirely absent.

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?

Both parameters (algo, input) have 0% schema description coverage and the description adds nothing about either. An agent cannot tell whether algo accepts "sha256" or "SHA-256", nor whether input is a literal string or a path, nor what the defaults are.

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?

"sha digest" names a resource and vaguely implies producing a hash digest, but there is no verb and no scope. It reads as a restatement of the tool name "hash" and does not distinguish it from the sibling hmac tool, which also produces a cryptographic digest.

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 whatsoever about when to use this instead of hmac, base64, or token. Nothing indicates the input type expected or the context in which a plain digest is the right choice.

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