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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: hashing is performed locally and is deterministic/reproducible by anyone with the same text, which tells the agent no network call or secret is involved.

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 tight sentences with the output format front-loaded and no filler; every clause carries information about what is produced or how it behaves.

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 one-parameter pure function with no output schema, the description supplies the return format, the determinism guarantee, and the domain meaning of the hash, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as 'the exact spec or output text to hash'. The description reinforces the 'exact text' requirement but adds no format or encoding details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (computes) and resource (sha256 content hash) and pins the exact output format 'sha256:<64 hex>'. It also ties the result to INAM's specHash/outputHash fields, which no sibling tool does, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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 mention of specHash and outputHash gives clear context for when this tool is relevant, and no sibling offers hashing so there is no alternative to route away from. It stops short of explicitly saying when not to use it or what to do with the resulting hash.

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