hires_get_evaluation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does state the return payload (evaluator info, summary score, summary text, and individual answers), which is helpful, but it does not explicitly mention that it is a read-only operation or cover potential edge cases, such as behavior when the evaluation is incomplete.

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?

The description is two sentences: the first defines the core function, the second lists return contents and a usage scenario. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or extraneous information.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter input, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns and when to use it. It provides enough context for an agent to select it appropriately without further documentation.

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?

The only parameter (id) is fully described in the schema as 'Evaluation form ID', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no further semantic detail about the id, such as format or where to obtain it, so it relies entirely on the schema for parameter meaning.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a filled evaluation form with all answers, specifying the resource (evaluation form) and the action (get). It also lists the return contents, distinguishing it from listing tools or other getters like hires_get_form.

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?

The description provides clear context by stating 'Use for detailed review of evaluator feedback on a candidate application.' This implies it is for detailed inspection rather than simple listing, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it misses the top score.

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