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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses determinism, Web Crypto implementation, verified pure-JS MD5 for legacy checksums, and per-call pricing, but it omits output encoding, input-size limits, error behavior, and any authentication or rate-limit details.

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 and appropriately short, with each sentence contributing purpose, determinism, usage, or cost. Minor issues include the typo 'sHA-256' and slightly promotional pricing sentence, but it remains efficient.

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 compute tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate to invoke it but incomplete. It does not explain the digest output format (e.g., hex vs. base64), input-size constraints, or error handling, which an agent may need for correct use.

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%, so the schema already defines the algo enum and text parameter. The description still adds useful meaning by stating the text is UTF-8 and by distinguishing SHA-family Web Crypto hashing from MD5 as a legacy checksum option.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: compute exact hash digests of UTF-8 text. It enumerates the supported algorithms (SHA-256, SHA-512, SHA-1, MD5), so an agent can distinguish it from unrelated dev tools such as base64_encode or jwt_decoder.

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?

It explicitly says to use this when an agent needs SHA-256/SHA-512/SHA-1/MD5 exact digests, giving clear usage context. It does not specify when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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