Get evaluation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it clearly indicates a read-only retrieval operation and discloses what is included in the result. It does not discuss error/not-found behavior, but for a simple get-by-id tool this is a minor gap.

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 sentence with no wasted words, and the primary action and target are front-loaded. Every word adds value.

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 simple one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it will receive and by what identifier. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it could mention what happens when no evaluation matches the given id.

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 does so by linking the 'id' parameter to the stored evaluation, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare string type. For a single obvious parameter, this is sufficient.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('stored evaluation'), and clarifies the scope ('by id') and content ('original input and per-rule results'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_evaluations or evaluate.

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 phrase 'Fetch a stored evaluation by id' gives clear context: use this when you have a specific evaluation ID and need the stored result. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the single-parameter design and retrieval wording imply the right usage.

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