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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the tool returns conditions gating decryption, but says nothing about permissions required, pagination, or error behavior for non-Lit-encrypted bundles.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause.

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 read-only getter with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and what it returns. Minor omissions (alternatives, prerequisite handling for non-encrypted bundles) keep 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single bundleId parameter is well documented in the schema itself, including the 'must be Lit-encrypted' constraint. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (get), resource (Lit Protocol access conditions), and scope (a Lit-encrypted evidence bundle), and even clarifies the return ('conditions that gate decryption'). This distinguishes it from lit_decrypt and get_evidence_bundle, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: retrieve access conditions when working with a Lit-encrypted bundle. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to alternatives such as lit_decrypt or get_evidence_bundle, leaving routing to inference.

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