run_conversation_evaluations

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description should add context about what this write actually does — does it trigger a rerun of scoring, does it modify stored results, does it require an existing evaluation run. Instead the description adds nothing beyond the annotations, leaving the agent with no understanding of the mutation's effects or output.

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 a single short phrase with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise — it front-loads nothing beyond the title. It fails to earn its place as a standalone description.

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 non-idempotent, open-world write tool with an undocumented enum parameter and no output schema, the description should explain triggers, effects, and expected results. It does none of this, leaving the definition materially incomplete for correct invocation.

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 67%, with conversation_id and evaluation_id documented in the schema while 'scope' (enum: conversation, agent) has no description. The tool description supplies no parameter-level detail at all. The schema carries most of the load, so the baseline 3 applies, but the description does not compensate for the undocumented scope parameter.

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 restates the tool name ('Run Conversation Evaluation') without adding specificity about what an evaluation is, how it is triggered, or what result it produces. It states a verb and resource, so it clears the vague bar, but it offers nothing an agent could not infer from the name itself. Among many sibling 'run_*' and 'conversation_*' tools, it does not distinguish itself.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternative tools such as run_conversation_analysis, run_conversation_simulation_route, or resubmit_tests_route. The agent must guess when this is the right tool versus those siblings.

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