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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose the deterministic, non-destructive nature of hashing implicitly and states the default algorithm, which is the main behavioral choice. It does not say what the response looks like (hex vs. base64, casing) or how the input text is encoded before hashing.

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 tight sentence with zero filler, and the most decision-relevant detail (the default algorithm) is placed where it is read first.

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, no-output-schema utility this is essentially enough to call it correctly: required input, optional algorithm, and the default are all covered. The only real omission is the output encoding of the returned digest, which an agent must guess.

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 0%, so the description must compensate – and it does for 'algo' by naming the four permitted values and the sha256 default, which is exactly what the enum requires. 'text' is left unexplained, but it is self-evident from the verb 'Hash text'.

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 ('Hash') plus the exact resource ('text') and enumerates the supported algorithms with their default. Siblings (uuid, slug, csv2json) are visibly different utility functions, so no differentiation is needed and an agent can select this tool unambiguously.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose itself – if you need a hash of some text, this is the tool. It discloses the default algorithm, but gives no explicit context about when hashing is the right operation (e.g., checksums vs. password storage) and there are no named alternatives to compare against.

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