polaris_evaluations

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it delivers meaningful traits: evaluations are immutable after recording, disposition honors approved unexpired waivers, validUntil signals staleness, and 'no data never counts as success'. Auth/rate-limit behavior is not mentioned, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

Tightly front-loaded: the purpose sentence comes first, then a compact action list, then the return shape. Every block earns its place, and the evaluation JSON preview substitutes for a missing output schema rather than padding.

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 6-parameter, no-output-schema reader, the description supplies the enumeration of actions, the parameters each requires, and a full field-level preview of the returned evaluation object (outcome/disposition/criterionResults/data). Sibling differentiation and error/empty-result behavior are the remaining gaps.

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 carry all six parameters, and it does: action, evaluation_id, fitness_function_id, and the optional limit/cursor/all_pages are all named with their contexts. It adds meaning over the bare schema, though cursor semantics (opacity, encoding) are not spelled out.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read evaluations') and enumerates the two read actions (get, list_by_function) with their required parameters. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as polaris_evaluation_requests, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone why it should pick this tool over that one.

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?

Gives clear action-selection guidance by pairing each action with its required parameter (get→evaluation_id, list_by_function→fitness_function_id) and noting pagination options for the list case. It stops short of any when-not-to-use or alternative-tool routing, which is the missing piece for a 5.

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