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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are scoped to the active workspace and include target config, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or empty-list behavior.

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 sentences, no filler, and the most decision-relevant information (what is listed, what it contains) is front-loaded before the routing hint.

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-optional-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and why to call it. Minor gap: no indication of how many evals are returned or whether listing is paginated.

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% and the single workspace parameter is fully documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The phrase 'active workspace' loosely reinforces the workspace-scoping behavior but adds no syntax or override detail beyond the 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?

States a specific verb (lists) and resource (evals) with scope (active workspace) and even previews the payload (target config: Workbench flow, dataset/rubric). This makes it distinguishable from siblings like caliper_evals_get without opening either 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?

Explicitly names a downstream use case ('Use to find the evalId for caliper_evals_run'), which tells the agent when this tool is the right entry point. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g. caliper_evals_get) or stating when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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