lookup_evaluation_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Look up stored ... results" implies a read-only retrieval over persisted data and discloses that both id-based and filter-based access exist, but permissions, result limits, pagination, and how multiple filters combine are all unstated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though it is terse enough that a little more structure around the two lookup modes would have cost nothing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a four-optional-parameter query tool with no annotations, the description omits filter-combination rules, empty-result behavior, and any cap on returned records.

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 maps concepts to all four parameters (evaluation_id via "id", resume_id, job_id, status), but adds no format details, does not note that every parameter is optional, and does not explain filter combination semantics.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Look up stored evaluation results") and states the two access modes: by id or by filter. The sibling tools (search_documents, retrieve_evidence, compare_resume_to_job, capture_reviewer_feedback) are clearly different resources, so no explicit differentiation is needed, but it is also not named.

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?

It implies two usage modes (id lookup vs filtering by resume/job/status) but never states when to prefer one, whether filters can be combined, or what to do when no match exists. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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