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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that the receipt is unsigned (no key or auth involved), but says nothing about determinism, canonicalization of the payload, or whether anything is persisted, which matters for a hashing tool accepting arbitrary JSON values.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key differentiator ('non-signed') appears early. Its brevity is close to under-specification rather than verbosity, so it loses little here.

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?

With three required parameters, no output schema, and thin annotations, the description should describe what the returned hash looks like (algorithm, encoding, format) and how payloads are normalized. Neither is present, so an agent can call it but cannot predict or validate the result.

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 description coverage is 0% for three required parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It maps 'agent, action, supplied payload' to the actor/action/payload fields but adds no format, encoding, or canonicalization semantics, leaving open how object/array payloads are serialized before hashing.

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 (Create) and a specific resource (non-signed hash receipt) and names the three inputs it consumes. The qualifier 'non-signed' meaningfully separates it from receipt-signing/verification tools like privi_receipt_verify, though it never explicitly contrasts with the near-neighbor privi_payload_hash.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no named alternative. An agent must infer from the word 'non-signed' alone that this is the unsigned counterpart of a signing flow rather than, say, privi_payload_hash.

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