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

While annotations indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description adds useful context about local computation, payment requirements, and a free tier. However, it doesn't disclose potential limitations like rate limits beyond the free tier or security implications of exposing text, but it does exceed the baseline given annotations.

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 succinct, two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. It efficiently conveys essential information about algorithms, payment, and free tier without fluff.

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 an output schema, so return values are covered. The description covers usage context, payment, and free tier. Missing is explicit mention of output format (e.g., hex string) but that's in output schema. Also lack of note on hash collision or security, but that's minor.

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?

The description explains the default algorithm (sha256) and how to specify multiple algorithms, adding value beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It also clarifies the meaning of wallet and x_payment in the context of payment and free tier, enriching the schema.

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 clearly states the tool computes cryptographic hash digests of arbitrary text, listing supported algorithms (MD5, SHA-1, etc.), which differentiates it from siblings like uuid or text_stats. The verb 'compute' and resource 'hash digests' are specific.

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 explains the key-less, local computation nature and mentions payment options, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it. However, the context is clear for a hashing utility, so it's a minor gap.

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