List reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is free. The description usefully adds pagination semantics (bounded page plus continuation token) and org scoping, but omits ordering of results, behavior on empty result sets, and token expiry.

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?

Two tight sentences, scoping and return behavior front-loaded with no filler. Slightly short of 5 only because it spends a clause on what the schema already says.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description's note about page summaries and a continuation token carries real weight and covers the essentials for a read-only paginated list. Missing sort order and terminal-page behavior keeps it from 5.

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 coverage is 100%: page_size bounds/default and page_token pattern are fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of a continuation token echoes the schema rather than extending it, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource (list saved evaluation reports) with an added scope qualifier (authorized organization). It does not explicitly contrast with get_report or the other list_* siblings, so differentiation comes mostly from the name.

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?

Usage is only implied by the name and the 'saved evaluation reports' phrasing; there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_report for a single report or versus list_run_templates. An agent can infer it, but nothing is stated.

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