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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — no output format, no note on defaults, no statement about performance or limits, and no clarification of how the HMAC/identification capabilities are triggered.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose, which is good. However, the first two clauses ('MD5 / SHA hashes of a text. Hash text.') are pure restatements of the title and name and consume space without adding information, leaving a three-clause capability list with no structure or priority.

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?

With no output schema, the description should ideally indicate the shape of the result (e.g. a map of algorithm to hex digest), which it omits. The advertised HMAC and algorithm-identification behaviors are plausible extensions of a single text input but are never tied to parameters or return values, leaving the agent to guess how to invoke them.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the comma-list format and examples. The description's algorithm enumeration duplicates the schema's enum-like list rather than adding syntax, defaults, or edge-case behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already carries the parameter documentation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (hashing text) and enumerates the supported algorithms, so an agent knows exactly what the tool computes. It does not need to differentiate from siblings since none of the other utilities overlap. The opening 'MD5 / SHA hashes of a text' plus 'Hash text.' is a restatement of the title and name, which slightly dilutes the clarity.

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 lists capabilities (multi-algorithm hashing, HMAC signing, algorithm identification) but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool, what the defaults are if 'algorithms' is omitted, or any prerequisites. Worse, HMAC signing conventionally requires a secret key and no such parameter exists, so the agent is nudged toward a capability it cannot configure.

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