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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for disclosing the privacy-relevant fact that submitted text reaches the server and that the call is free with no onward request — real value beyond the annotations — but it says nothing about the hash algorithm, output format, or size limits.

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?

Three compact clauses, zero waste, with the core action and the privacy warning front-loaded before the cost note.

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?

With no output schema, the description should have said what comes back (algorithm, digest encoding), and it doesn't. It also leaves the two-parameter structure unexplained, though it does cover the most agent-critical risk — sending private data to a remote server — well.

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 0% and neither parameter is documented anywhere. The description's words 'text' and 'bytes' loosely hint at payload_text vs payload_base64url, but it never explains which to supply, whether they are mutually exclusive, or that both are optional (required count 0).

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Hash public bytes on this remote server.' The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from the sibling tools (catalog, sample, time, verify, witness), though it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear when-not rule: 'hash private work locally instead,' which tells the agent the key selection condition — only public data belongs here. No sibling is named as an alternative path, and the mutual exclusivity of the two payload parameters is left unaddressed.

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