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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond annotations by decoding the 'binding' health field and warning that false values mean a run would fail at resolution — actionable behavioral context you can't get from the schema. It does not describe rate limits or pagination, but for a bounded single-record read that is acceptable.

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?

Single dense sentence plus a short provenance sentence. The field list is long but each item is informative; no filler. Slightly front-loaded awkwardly because the opening 'One eval:' is terse before the payload, but overall efficient.

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 read-only, 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description must convey what comes back — and it does enumerate the returned fields (target, dataset/rubric ids, criteria snapshot, schedule, run counts, latest score, binding health). It omits error/not-found behavior and pagination, but covers the essentials an agent needs to interpret and act on the result.

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%, so the schema already documents evalId and workspace. The description adds sourcing guidance for evalId (from caliper_evals_list or caliper_flow_performance) but no syntax or format details beyond what the schema states. 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('One eval') and enumerates exactly what a single eval record contains: target (workbench flow + stage or external), dataset and rubric ids, rubric criteria snapshot, schedule settings, run counts, latest score, and binding health. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like caliper_evals_list (list) and caliper_evals_run (execution).

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?

It tells the agent where to get the evalId (caliper_evals_list or caliper_flow_performance) and prescribes an action ('say so before proposing caliper_evals_run') when binding health is broken. It doesn't explicitly exclude any nearby tool, but the context is strong enough that an agent knows this is a single-item read.

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