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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is paid ($0.10 via x402, USDC Base) and uses WebCrypto, but it omits wallet/auth prerequisites, failure behavior, rate limits, and return format.

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 compact and front-loaded: payment cost first, then purpose, then arguments. Every sentence and fragment earns its place for this simple utility.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers cost, hashing mechanism, and both parameters. It is nearly complete, though it could say more about output format and payment/auth setup.

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%, so the description must compensate. It documents both parameters, identifies text as a string, and gives algo's default (sha256) and allowed values, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare enum.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'cryptographic hash of any text via WebCrypto.' This clearly distinguishes a hashing utility from non-hash siblings like encode_base64 or gen_uuid, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate against those alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by 'hash of any text' and the documented algo choices, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives such as encode_base64 for reversible encoding.

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