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

Annotations already declare this as a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the rubric criteria are a creation-time snapshot, and datasetOk/flowOk=false means a run would fail at resolution, which is decision-relevant context the annotations cannot convey.

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 content is front-loaded and every clause describes a distinct returned field, so nothing is filler. It is a single dense run-on sentence, which slightly hurts scanability for an agent parsing it quickly.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing the return payload, and it does so comprehensively: it lists every meaningful field, explains the binding-health semantics, and routes the agent to a follow-up action. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool 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%, so both evalId and workspace are already fully documented by the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds only a sourcing hint for evalId (get it from caliper_evals_list / caliper_flow_performance) rather than any new format or constraint meaning.

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 enumerates precisely what a single eval record contains (target, dataset/rubric ids, rubric snapshot, schedule, run counts, latest score, binding health), so the agent knows exactly what this returns. The verb itself is only implied via the name/title, and sibling differentiation against caliper_evals_list is present but indirect (it only says where to source the evalId).

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 gives concrete task-oriented guidance: check binding health and 'say so before proposing caliper_evals_run,' which is a real precondition an agent should act on. It names caliper_evals_list and caliper_flow_performance as where to obtain the id, but states no explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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