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

The readOnlyHint annotation is consistent with "Read." The description adds useful qualifiers like "recent" and "private," but it does not explain ordering, pagination behavior, retention, or what "private" means for access scope.

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 wording. Its brevity is appropriate, though it leaves important operational details unstated.

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 read-only history tool with five parameters including pagination and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not explain default page size, cursor usage, or what fields the returned evaluations contain.

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 0% across five parameters. The description implies policyId ("one saved quality policy") and recency, but says nothing about workspaceToken, limit, cursor, or operationId, leaving most invocation details to 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, resource, and scope: "Read recent private evaluations of one saved quality policy." An agent can tell it accesses historical evaluation records rather than the policy itself, though it does not explicitly contrast with quality_policy_get or quality_policy_evaluate.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It does not say whether to call this for audit history versus quality_policy_get for current policy details or quality_policy_evaluate to run a new evaluation.

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