fetch_scores

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention pagination behavior (despite page/limit parameters), filter combination semantics, ordering, or whether the operation is strictly read-only. 'Fetch' implies read-only, but the description lacks explicit confirmation or details about side effects.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple fetch tool, though it could have added more detail without becoming bloated.

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?

Despite having an output schema and 7 optional filter parameters, the description is minimal. It does not explain how filters interact, default pagination behavior, or any use cases. The output schema covers return structure, but the description lacks essential behavioral context for a tool with this complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'optional filters' without explaining any of the seven parameters (name, page, limit, project, trace_id, to/from_timestamp). Even though parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning about how they are used or combined.

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 ('Fetch scores/evaluations') and mentions optional filters, making the core action clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like list_scores_v2 or get_score_v2, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states that the tool fetches scores with filters, leaving the decision-making entirely to the agent.

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