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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no mention that hashing is a deterministic, non-reversible pure function, no output format (hex vs base64), no statement of side effects or failure modes for invalid input.

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 single compact line with zero waste, and the algorithm choices are front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity errs toward under-specification rather than over-verbosity.

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 two-parameter pure utility tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient, but it never says what the tool returns (a digest string) despite there being no output schema to cover that.

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 description coverage is 100% and the enum itself documents the four algorithms with a default of sha256, so the description adds nothing beyond the schema. The phrase 'of text' maps to the required text parameter but gives no format or encoding details.

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 is a bare enumeration of algorithm names plus 'of text', which implies hashing but never states a verb or a noun like 'hash digest'. It does separate this from the encoding siblings (base64, urlencode) by naming cryptographic algorithms, but the agent must infer the operation from the tool name.

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 statement of when to use this versus base64/urlencode or why one algorithm would be chosen over another. An agent gets no guidance on alternatives or selection criteria beyond the parameter enum itself.

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