tool_hash_verify

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely lists parameters and an output without explaining the verification logic, possible error conditions, side effects, or how 'valid' is computed. This is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise but wastes the available space by simply echoing parameter names already present in the schema. The list format is clear, but the content is redundant, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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 5 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'category' or 'algorithm' mean, how the verification is performed, or what the valid boolean indicates beyond a trivial label. The agent would be unable to call this tool correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the descriptions in the schema are trivial (e.g., 'Data', 'Hash'). The tool description repeats these without adding any meaning about allowed categories, algorithm formats, or the relationship between inputs and the 'valid' output. It adds no value beyond the schema, so it falls below the baseline of 3.

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 'Hash Verify' is essentially a restatement of the tool name with minimal elaboration. It does not state a clear verb+resource beyond the name itself, and it fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like tool_hmac_verify or tool_crypto. The parameter list adds no purpose clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.

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