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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds two things they don't: the returned content is decrypted, and the call fails with 403 without content scope. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured hints, though nothing is said about return shape or size/limits.

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?

Two compact sentences with the identifier semantics and the scope constraint front-loaded and no filler. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the identifier, the decryption semantics, and the authorization failure mode — the main things needed to call it correctly. It is only thin on relating itself to the sibling content/entity tools.

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% and the schema already defines name_hash as the SHA-256 hex of the normalised name and marks node_id as unused, so the description's restatement of name_hash adds no new syntax or constraints. Baseline 3 when the schema does all the work.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource — get one entity's decrypted content — plus the key identifier (name_hash). The DECRYPTED emphasis hints at the distinction from plain-text siblings, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_entity or get_node_content, so an agent must infer which of the content tools to pick.

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?

It states one real prerequisite (content scope required, 403 otherwise), which is genuine usage context. However, it gives no when-not guidance and never names an alternative tool, so the choice between get_entity_content, get_entity, and get_node_content is left to inference.

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