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

The description discloses that the output is a hex digest, which gives some insight into the return type. However, with no annotations, it does not mention purity, output casing, error handling, or whether the computation is local, leaving several behavioral aspects implied rather than explicit.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the tool's function and supported algorithms. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, making it ideal for a simple tool.

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 hash tool, the description is largely complete: it identifies the algorithms, implies the input type, and specifies the output format as a hex digest. Minor details like output case or empty-string behavior are not covered, but they are not critical for invoking a hash function.

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%, with both parameters fully described in the schema. The description repeats the algorithm choices but adds no new constraints, format details, or examples, so it provides no additional semantic value beyond 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 generates a hash digest and specifies the supported algorithms (MD5, SHA-256, SHA-512). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like encode_base64 or generate_uuid.

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 implies usage for hashing strings with supported algorithms, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. No comparison with sibling tools is provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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