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

The phrase 'hashes instead of raw data' is a useful behavioral disclosure, indicating a privacy-preserving output. However, with no annotations, the description must carry more context about side effects, read-only nature, or permissions, which are absent.

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, but it is a fragment and under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It omits critical details about the report's content, return value, and usage, so it does not earn its place as a complete description.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides minimal context. It fails to clarify what the report contains, when it should be used, or how entity_id affects the output, making the tool contextually incomplete.

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 defines one parameter, entity_id, but the description does not explain its purpose or expected format. With 0% schema description coverage, the tool description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter semantically opaque.

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 'Privacy-preserving report: hashes instead of raw data' is a noun phrase rather than a clear action statement. It implies the tool produces a report with hashed data, but lacks a specific verb like 'generates' or 'returns' and does not distinguish this from sibling tools such as audit_proof or obligation_proof.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving an agent without criteria to select it.

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