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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'input discarded', implying the input is ignored, but it does not state the output, whether it is constant, or any side effects. This is severely inadequate for a tool with 9 parameters.

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 extremely short but under-specified rather than concise. It front-loads no useful information and lacks any structure, leaving the agent to guess at the tool's operation.

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 tool with 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is wholly incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how the input is used, or why one would call it. This is inadequate for an agent to make an informed decision.

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%, with each parameter having a descriptive explanation (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description 'FarmHash64 hex length, input discarded' is ambiguous. It does not state a clear verb and resource; it could mean the tool computes the hex length of a FarmHash64 hash, but the role of the input is unclear. It does not differentiate from siblings like normalize-url or validate-json, leaving the agent without a distinct purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this tool or when not to, and no mention of alternatives. The agent receives no context about which scenarios warrant calling farm64 versus any of the 29 sibling tools.

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