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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a contained safe read. The description adds useful context about what the read returns (criterion names, judge focus, score scale). Beyond that it does not describe pagination, caching, or error behavior, and with annotations carrying the safety profile the description's added value is moderate.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what is returned, why to read it, and where the id comes from. The purpose is front-loaded and the guidance follows naturally.

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 two-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers the resource, its contents, and the id source adequately. The minor gap is that workspace behavior is left entirely to the schema, but that is reasonable given 100% schema coverage.

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% — the schema itself documents rubricId and workspace. The description reinforces where to obtain the rubricId, which is helpful routing but not syntax or format information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 specifies the verb (read), resource (a single rubric), and the exact contents returned — criteria with their names, the judge's focus, and the score scale. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like caliper_rubrics_list and caliper_rubrics_update.

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 two concrete when-to-use conditions (to explain a score and before updating) and names the source for the required rubricId. Exclusions are implicit but the alternative list tool is referenced for retrieval.

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