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

The description goes beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations by naming exactly what is returned: canonical SHA-256 fingerprints across three surface types. It does not explain domain terms like 'Agent Surface' or what happens when path is omitted, but the annotations already establish the safety profile and no contradiction is present.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load the core output and then provide a concrete use case. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fillr or redundancy.

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 read-only, idempotent tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It could be more complete by defining 'Agent Surface' and explaining the default behavior when path is omitted, but the schema and annotations cover most operational needs.

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-only optional path parameter is fully described in the schema, and the description does not add further meaning about how path selects or filters surfaces. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it returns canonical SHA-256 fingerprints for the Agent Surface, JSON, and NDJSON surfaces, which clearly identifies the operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like verify_artifact or get_freshness, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 states a concrete use case: verifying that an agent ingested a precise snapshot. It does not, however, say when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as verify_artifact or get_changefeed, nor does it provide any exclusions.

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