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

Annotations confirm this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, and the description adds meaningful mechanism detail (a re-encrypted key capsule is produced). It omits revocation/idempotency behavior and any authorization requirements on the caller, which matter for an access-granting operation.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the mechanism. No filler.

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 three-parameter mutation with annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the core action, but it leaves out usage conditions, caller authorization, and grant lifecycle. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so bundleId, recipientAddress, and the accessLevel enum (full/selective/summary_only) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so it sits at the baseline for full coverage.

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 ('Grant'), resource ('access to an encrypted evidence bundle'), and the mechanism ('Creates a re-encrypted key capsule'). This clearly distinguishes it from list_evidence_grants and archive_evidence without needing the schema.

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 versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. must the caller own the bundle?), and no note on whether granting is reversible or needs recipient consent. An agent gets the what but not the when.

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