omnia_evaluate

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds context beyond those: it explicitly says the tool persists an audit record and expires records under retention, helping an agent anticipate side effects before calling. It does not contradict the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the main action and side effects without excess. 'Expire records under retention' is vague jargon, but the overall length and ordering are efficient.

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 highly complex input schema and presence of an output schema, the description is minimal but covers the key side-effect concerns. It omits usage context and any clarification of what 'evaluate' produces or how the retention expiration behaves, so it is adequate but not complete for a tool of 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%, and the description must compensate, but it only says 'a request' — essentially repeating the parameter name without explaining state, questions, policy, evidence, or provider. The schema itself is rich, but the description adds no meaning beyond what the parameter name already conveys.

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 states a specific action (evaluate) on a specific resource (a request) and names two side effects (persist audit record, expire records under retention). The singular 'a request' distinguishes it from the batch sibling omnia_evaluate_batch, but it does not explicitly contrast with omnia_get_decision or omnia_capabilities.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus omnia_evaluate_batch, omnia_get_decision, or omnia_capabilities. The singular wording implies single evaluation, but the description never tells an agent 'use this for one request and omnia_evaluate_batch for multiple' or 'use omnia_get_decision to retrieve decisions'.

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