Consult Sofia

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds useful scope by listing the organization data Sofia may use and explicitly restating that it cannot create, modify, run, or delete anything. It does not cover rate limits or detailed auth requirements, so it falls short of a 5.

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 three tight sentences: capability, accessible resources, and mutation boundary. The core purpose is front-loaded and every sentence adds distinct information.

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 rich annotations, full parameter descriptions, and no output schema, the description gives enough context to invoke the tool correctly: it is read-only, organization-scoped, and non-mutating. A minor gap is that it does not hint at the response shape or whether answers cite sources, but nothing essential for calling it is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents prompt, session_id, and conversation semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline for fully documented parameters.

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: 'Delegate a read-only Coval evaluation question to Sofia.' It clearly separates this delegation tool from the CRUD-style siblings by framing it as a read-only consultative delegation rather than a list/get/create operation.

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 implies when to use the tool by specifying 'read-only Coval evaluation question' and enumerating the data domains Sofia can access. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of direct sibling tools like list_runs or get_metric, nor does it give exclusions beyond the mutation prohibition.

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