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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds useful behavioral context beyond them: deterministic output, no network, no stored state, and concrete call limits. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 clearly structured with purpose, when/not-for, side effects, determinism, and limits. It is somewhat longer because the same information is presented in Spanish and English, but each language block is efficient and front-loaded.

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 a simple checksum tool, rich annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: algorithm, standard, alternatives, safety, determinism, and limits. The only minor note is that the stated JSON input limit appears stricter than the schema's `data` maxLength, but the operational guidance is still complete.

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%, so the schema already documents `data` and `input_encoding`, including the enum and default. The description adds a general input-size limit but does not explain encoding semantics or other parameter details, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific algorithm and standard: Adler-32 per RFC 1950/zlib, explicitly non-cryptographic. It distinguishes the tool from the nearest sibling by naming checksum-crc32 as the alternative for CRC-32.

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?

It explicitly says when to use it (fast non-cryptographic checksum for error detection, sharding, hash tables) and when not to use it (CRC-32; use checksum-crc32 instead). This gives an agent clear routing guidance among many checksum siblings.

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