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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'value discarded' hints at a non-persistent behavior, but it doesn't clarify whether this tool makes network calls, requires auth, or what it returns for a valid vs invalid input. The 9 heterogeneous parameters (url, city, feed, host, path, zone, query) are unexplained, leaving the behavioral model 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?

Extremely terse, which is efficient, but the fragment nature makes it under-specified rather than concise. Three words don't front-load enough information for an agent to act on.

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?

Nine params, no required fields, no annotations, no output schema, and only three words of description. For a tool with this much surface area, the description is materially incomplete – the agent must derive intent entirely from parameter names, which span unrelated-looking concepts (timezone, city, feed, path).

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 each parameter has a meaningful description ('Git ref name; discarded after the shape check', 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite'). The description itself adds no parameter information beyond this. Baseline 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'multihash prefix shape, value discarded' is a fragment, not a clear verb+resource statement. It gestures at shape-checking semantics like sibling tools (domain-shape, file-path-ok, search-query-len), but the name 'multihash-ok' combined with the description is cryptic. An agent cannot confidently determine this validates a multihash-prefix format without reading the schema.

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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, no conditions for selecting this tool over its ~30 siblings. The 'value discarded' phrasing hints at a discard behavior but the reader is left to infer what that means.

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