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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates that this is a read-oriented diagnostic operation and that it can report stored fingerprint values and drift. However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, require any permissions, or explain how the result is presented beyond the existing output schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and is short overall, but the heavy use of all-caps and repetitive phrasing ('fingerprint' appears multiple times) makes it less crisp than it could be. All three sentences do contribute useful routing information.

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 is simple, has an output schema, and the description gives strong selection guidance. The main gap is the undocumented 'authority' parameter, which an agent would need to understand to invoke the tool correctly when the user specifies a particular authority or source.

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 does not mention the only parameter, 'authority', at all. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it adds no meaning about what authority values are valid, whether it filters results, or how the agent should populate it.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it provides low-level fingerprint/hash/checksum diagnostics. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from ordinary source-health status questions, making its purpose clear even among the licensing-focused sibling tools.

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 gives explicit trigger phrases for when to select this tool ('fingerprint', 'hash', 'checksum', 'fingerprint drift') and an explicit exclusion for ordinary source-health questions. It does not name a specific alternative tool for those ordinary cases, but the when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance is strong.

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