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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'input discarded' which hints that parameters are not used for computation, but it does not explain what the tool does with the inputs, what side effects exist, what the output format is, or why the parameters are listed. The behavior is largely opaque.

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, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It front-loads the core idea ('FarmHash64 hex length') but the phrase 'input discarded' is confusing and does not earn its place without further explanation.

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?

Given 10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a cryptic one-line description, the tool is not adequately specified. An agent cannot infer what the tool returns, how the parameters relate to the hash, or why the tool exists alongside 30 siblings. The description is far from complete for a tool with this complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds almost no parameter-level meaning beyond 'input discarded', which actually undermines the schema's parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description does not compensate for the tool's unclear purpose.

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 cryptic and does not state a clear verb or resource. It suggests the tool computes a FarmHash64 hex length and discards input, but it does not explain what the tool actually does, what it returns, or how it relates to the 10 parameters. The name 'farm64' is not self-explanatory, and the description fails to distinguish it from siblings like calc-eval or search-query-len.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent cannot determine whether to call farm64 or a sibling like calc-eval or search-query-len for a given task.

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