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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds only that the data is raw and stored decentrally; it says nothing about response size, latency/timeouts, missing-CID failure behavior, or whether retrieval is pinned/cached.

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 short sentences, the core action front-loaded, and not a word of filler. Everything present earns its place.

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 one-parameter, read-only retrieval tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is close to sufficient. The main remaining gap is ambiguity versus bundle-oriented siblings, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 parameter (cid) is already documented as 'IPFS content identifier (CID)'. The description adds an implied 'by CID' but no format, encoding, or CIDv0/CIDv1 detail beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Retrieve raw data from IPFS by CID', which is unmistakably a fetch-by-identifier operation. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like get_bundle_ipfs or get_evidence_bundle, which sound like overlapping retrieval paths.

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?

'Used to fetch archived evidence bundles from decentralized storage' implies the intended context, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_bundle_ipfs or other bundle-retrieval siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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