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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It does say 'value discarded,' which mildly indicates the input is consumed but not stored. However, it does not describe the output shape, success/failure signals, side effects, or what constitutes a valid SSH fingerprint hex shape, so the behavioral burden is largely unmet.

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?

A five-word fragment is compact, but it is under-specification rather than appropriate concision. The tool is the shape-check domain over 9 optional parameters, so the description does not earn its brevity by covering the necessary decisions an agent must make.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description needs to explain invocation, accepted parameter role, and result semantics. It does none of that beyond a terse domain clue. The gap is especially important because no parameters are required, leaving the agent unable to know the intended input.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is met. However, the description does not help the agent determine which of the 9 optional fields should receive an SSH fingerprint: none of `ref`, `city`, `feed`, etc. are explicitly linked to the tool's purpose. The high schema coverage prevents a lower score, but the mapping remains unclear.

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 names a specific resource (SSH fingerprint hex shape) and the tool name 'ssh-fp-ok' implies a validity check, but it is only a fragment without an explicit verb. The 9 unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, path, etc.) are not explained, which undercuts clear purpose and differentiation from sibling shape tools.

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 about when to use this tool versus sibling shape/check tools. No exclusions, alternatives, or conditions are given; the description only supplies a one-line statement. The agent cannot infer the intended selection criteria.

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