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

Annotations already declare it a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the safety burden is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the tool returns three specific artifacts and notes the Filecoin deal ID is conditional ('if available'). It discloses no auth or rate-limit behavior, but for a simple getter this is solid.

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 efficient sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the return payload described immediately after the dash. No wasted words.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully carries the return-value burden by naming the CIDs and deal ID. Combined with annotations covering safety and a fully documented single parameter, an agent has everything needed to invoke it; only the absence of sibling routing keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is only one parameter (bundleId) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no syntax, format, or scoping detail about the bundle ID. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb (Get) and resource (IPFS CIDs for a bundle) and even enumerates the returned artifacts (primary CID, metadata CID, Filecoin deal ID). It is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling retrieve_ipfs, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as retrieve_ipfs or get_evidence_bundle. Usage is only implied by the name and resource. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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