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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that the text is transmitted to the server but not stored or logged, and that hashing is performed server-side. This privacy-related behavioral context is valuable and not available from the annotations alone.

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 sentences with no filler: the main operation and use case are front-loaded, the privacy note follows, and the local-alternative guidance closes without redundancy. Every clause contributes.

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 one fully documented parameter, clear safety annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers all operational aspects: what it does, why to use it, privacy behavior, and when to avoid it. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call this tool 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?

The schema already describes the text parameter thoroughly (UTF-8 exact encoding, whitespace counts, max 40,000 chars), so the baseline is high. The description adds the useful qualifier 'short text' and reinforces the anchoring use case, though most parameter detail comes from the schema.

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?

Description states a specific action ('Compute the SHA-256 digest') and resource ('short text (UTF-8)'), and ties it to a concrete use case with anchor_proof. This is distinct from sibling tools like check_proof or verify_message, which handle verification rather than digest computation.

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?

Explicitly says when to use server-side hashing (short texts, e.g., messages for anchor_proof) and when not to (files and confidential texts), providing concrete local alternatives such as sha256sum and Get-FileHash. This is direct, actionable routing guidance.

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