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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: it returns full set objects and explains the hasMore flag semantics. This helps the agent understand the operational behavior of the list response without contradicting the annotations.

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?

The description is three sentences long, with the core action and scoping front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: what the tool lists, why it should be used over a nonexistent get-by-id tool, and how to handle pagination. There is no redundancy or 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?

Given the rich input schema, output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers all necessary usage context: optional scoping, full-object results, lack of a get-by-id alternative, and pagination behavior. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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%, with detailed parameter descriptions for entityId, environment, workspaceId, pagination, and sorting. The tool description adds little beyond restating that entityId scopes to one extractor/classifier/splitter, so it does not substantially supplement the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the rich schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List evaluation sets') and immediately clarifies optional scoping by entityId to an extractor/classifier/splitter. It also disambiguates from a hypothetical get-by-id tool by noting none exists and that this list returns full set objects. This is clear and distinct from sibling tools like list_evaluation_items or create_evaluation_set.

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?

The description gives explicit guidance: use this tool because there is no get-by-id endpoint, prefer narrowing filters over pagination, and pass nextPageToken only when every item is needed. This directly tells the agent when and how to use the tool instead of relying on generic pagination behavior.

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