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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is deterministic and verifiable ('anyone holding that text can recompute'), which implies a pure, side-effect-free computation, but it never states whether any auth/scope is needed or that nothing is persisted. Adequate but not rich.

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: the purpose/output format is front-loaded and the second sentence adds the verification nuance. No filler.

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 single-parameter pure function with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return format ('sha256:<64 hex>') and the exactness requirement, which is everything 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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description's 'exact spec or output text' largely restates the schema, adding the emphasis that exactness matters but no new syntax or format guidance. 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 ('Compute') and resource (the sha256 content hash) and even nails the required output format 'sha256:<64 hex>'. It also ties the hash to concrete fields (specHash/outputHash), so the agent knows exactly what artifact this produces.

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 explains the context of use: producing hashes that INAM requires for specHash/outputHash, and instructs passing the exact text. It doesn't name when-not to use it or an alternative, but the sibling tools (reputation, receipt, search) are unrelated so no routing conflict exists.

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