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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description reinforces this and adds value by clarifying that JavaScript is not executed and access controls are not bypassed. No contradictions.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences that convey purpose, constraints, and parameter usage. No redundant words. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description provides sufficient context for a hash computation tool. The term 'versioned' is not elaborated, but that detail is likely covered in the output.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds practical usage context: for url, emphasizes it must be an absolute public HTTP(S) URL; for fresh, explains cost implications. This goes beyond schema descriptions.

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 starts with 'Compute a versioned SHA-256 of normalized content,' providing a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like web.url.extract or web.url.content_type by focusing on hashing.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('only for public HTTP(S) resources') and when not ('does not execute JavaScript or bypass access controls'). Provides clear guidance on the fresh parameter, recommending false for cache reuse and true only when required.

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