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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the hashes are tamper-evident via an anchor transaction on Base, and implies a read-only lookup of published values. It doesn't cover auth requirements or rate limits, but for a static hash-lookup tool the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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 sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded ('Official SHA-256 hashes'), followed by the usage workflow and the tamper-evidence rationale. Every sentence earns its place; it could arguably drop the final sentence but it adds valuable trust context.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is largely complete: it explains what is returned (hashes), the source domain (gibbr.app), the verification workflow, and the anchoring mechanism. The output schema covers return-value details, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on what the output represents rather than input semantics, which is appropriate given there is nothing to configure. No parameter documentation is needed or missing.

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 resource and action: 'Official SHA-256 hashes for the Gibbr Android APKs'. It names the exact verification object (APK hashes) and the anchoring chain (Base blockchain), making it unambiguous. No sibling tool handles APK verification, so it is clearly differentiated from the surrounding get_* 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?

The description spells out the intended workflow: 'An agent or IT tool downloads the APK from gibbr.app, computes its SHA-256, and compares against these published values.' This tells the agent exactly how to consume the tool. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but for a zero-parameter verification tool this is a minor gap.

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