hash_text

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a monetary cost ($0.001 USDC via x402), which is useful, but it omits critical behavioral aspects such as the hashing algorithms supported, whether the operation is deterministic, output format, or any side effects.

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?

The description is concise at one sentence and front-loaded with the tool name, but it is under-specified. It includes an unnecessary format label ('Text & Encoding tool') that adds little value while omitting essential invocation details.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a parameter schema that is a generic passthrough, the description is far from complete. An agent cannot reliably determine how to call the tool, what to pass in 'params', or what to expect in response.

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 input schema defines a single generic 'params' object with no property details. The description fails to specify what keys or values the 'params' object should contain (e.g., text, algorithm). Schema coverage is 100% only in the sense that the generic 'params' is documented, but it conveys no semantic meaning.

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 states a specific action ('hash text') and resource (text), and also assigns a category ('Text & Encoding tool'). This distinguishes it from unrelated tools in the sibling list, though it does not specify which hash algorithm is used or how it differs from other text transformation 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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. The 'Text & Encoding tool' categorization is a weak context signal, but there is no mention of typical use cases, exclusions, or alternative tools for similar tasks.

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