Identify a file by MD5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return semantics (resolves to a mod AND a file), which is useful, but says nothing about behavior when the hash is unknown, rate limits, or ambiguity handling.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action ('Resolve an MD5 hash to its Nexus mod and file') before the use-case clause. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: input meaning, output (mod and file), and intended scenario. Minor gaps (not-found behavior, errors) are tolerable given the tool's simplicity and the safety annotations.

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% – both md5_hash (32 hex chars) and game_domain_name (with example and default) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Resolve an MD5 hash to its Nexus mod and file.' The verb+resource pairing is unambiguous and the tool is unique among siblings (none of the other tools consume an MD5), so an agent can route to it without schema inspection.

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?

Provides a clear use case: 'the reliable way to identify an unknown local archive,' which tells the agent when this tool applies. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. nexus_find_mods for name-based lookups) or stating when-not-to-use, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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