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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them — cursor stability across pages and the presence of regression signals in results — but says nothing about rate limits, auth scope, or ordering.

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 no wasted words and the resource named immediately. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to carry usage context.

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 an output schema present, return-value detail is unnecessary, and all four parameters plus the safety profile are covered by structured fields. What is missing is routing guidance relative to evaluations.list and run.explain, which a one-line description does not supply.

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%, with limit, cursor, status and evaluationId each fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. 'Stable cursors' hints at cursor semantics but adds no format or usage detail beyond the schema's 'Opaque nextCursor' text.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ('List evaluation runs') and adds two distinguishing traits (stable cursors, regression signals) that separate it from evaluations.list. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it differs from, so an agent still has to infer that evaluations.list returns evaluations rather than runs.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative is named. The mention of cursors only implies pagination mechanics, not the conditions under which this tool should be chosen over evaluations.list or run.explain.

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