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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds return-content context (encrypted payload + key capsules), but omits the downstream implication that decryption requires another tool (e.g., lit_decrypt) and whether access grants are required.

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 tight sentences, action first and return value second, with no filler. Nothing repeats the name gratuitously beyond the necessary verb-resource pairing.

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 single-parameter read with no output schema, the description does the minimum by naming the returned fields. It stops short of explaining what key capsules enable or how this fits the evidence workflow, leaving the agent to infer the decryption step.

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 single bundleId parameter is already documented there; the description only restates 'by its bundle ID' without adding format, origin, or how the ID is obtained. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieves an encrypted evidence bundle identified by bundle ID, and describes the return content (encrypted payload plus key capsules). It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_bundle_ipfs, list_evidence, or verify_evidence_zk.

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 guidance on when to use this tool rather than the alternatives in a crowded evidence family (get_bundle_ipfs, list_evidence, archive_encrypted_bundle, grant_evidence_access). No prerequisites or preconditions are mentioned.

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