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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as handling of empty strings, encoding assumptions, or determinism. Minimal information beyond the name.

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 at three words. No unnecessary information. Front-loads the purpose. Could be considered too brief, but appropriate for a simple hash function.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description minimally covers what it does. However, given the lack of annotations and parameter descriptions, it should provide more context about input limits or output format confirmation.

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 has one parameter 'text' with 0% description coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter name and type. Fails to compensate for missing 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 'SHA256 hex digest' is highly specific, stating the algorithm (SHA256) and output format (hex digest). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like hash_md5 and hash_sha512.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like bcrypt_hash or hash_compare. No mention of use cases, constraints, or when to choose a different hash algorithm.

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