get criterion alignment

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context: it is free, never re-judges, returns a persistent report, supports polling via a specific 400 error, and explains when threshold_analysis is null. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 detailed but well-structured, front-loading purpose and scope before the return shape and error notes. Every sentence adds relevant information, especially since there is no output schema to document the response.

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 the tool's moderately complex return object, lack of an output schema, and single simple parameter, the description is complete: it documents the full return structure, error cases, polling behavior, historical null caveat, and key naming convention. An agent has enough to call it correctly.

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?

The input schema has one parameter, id, described as 'Criterion id,' and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds the endpoint pattern using {id}, but does not need to elaborate further because the parameter is simple and already documented.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Read') and a precise resource: the persistent report from the criterion's last calibration run. It enumerates the report contents and explicitly distinguishes itself by saying it never re-judges, making it easy to separate from run_criterion_alignment.

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 clearly communicates when to use this tool: to read an existing alignment report, poll an in-progress run, or check why no report exists. It says it is free and never re-judges, which implies a safe alternative to running alignment, but it does not explicitly name run_criterion_alignment as the counterpart tool.

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