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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds value by noting cursors are stable across pages and that results carry regression signals, but leaves what a 'regression signal' is, and how incomplete runs are handled, unexplained.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource comes first and the distinguishing traits follow. It is efficient, though the trailing phrase 'regression signals' is vague enough to feel like a compressed hint rather than a precise claim.

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 a full output schema and rich annotations, the description needn't explain return values, so brevity is defensible. However, it introduces unexplained concepts ('regression signals') and leaves the relationship to run_explain and evaluations_list unstated, which an agent would need in order to route 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%, so limit, cursor, status and evaluationId are all documented in the schema itself. The description only alludes loosely to cursors and does not extend semantics for status filtering or the ID format — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource with scope ('List evaluation runs') and adds two distinguishing traits: stable cursors and regression signals. It never names a sibling tool or explicitly contrasts with run_explain or evaluations_list, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 no indication of when to reach for this tool versus run_explain or evaluations_list, and no preconditions are stated. The only contextual hint is 'with stable cursors,' which implies pagination but doesn't guide tool selection.

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