list_project_policy_evaluations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds that the tool returns receipts along with their identification/authority limits, but it does not explain pagination, ordering, or what 'authority limits' are. No contradiction with 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 with the verb first and no filler. However, the cryptic compound 'identification/authority limits' could be clearer without adding length.

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?

This is a simple read-only list tool with an output schema and safety annotations, so it does not need extensive return or safety documentation. Still, the domain terms are undefined and there is no pointer to evaluate_project_offline_policy as the producing action, which leaves an agent slightly under-equipped.

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 carries the burden of explaining the two parameters. It provides no information about project_id or limit beyond their names, and 'identification/authority limits' does not clarify the parameters. The property names and the default of 25 are self-evident, but deeper semantics are missing.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('offline-policy receipts'), and distinguishes this from siblings like evaluate_project_offline_policy and list_project_policy_assignments. However, the phrase 'identification/authority limits' is jargon that leaves what is actually listed somewhat opaque.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as evaluate_project_offline_policy or list_project_policy_assignments. The usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the word 'receipts'.

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