get eval pairwise

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond those: recomputed on read so never stale, calibration null until pairs are labelled, corrected null until usable, and the same block stored on results.pairwise so gate/evidence read identical numbers. 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause carries information, but it is a single dense paragraph with deeply nested parentheticals describing the full return shape. It is thorough rather than concise, and would benefit from bulleted structure or clearer separation between response fields, error cases, and usage notes.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return values; it does so in exhaustive detail including null states, confidence intervals, floor half-width, and the corrected-rate formula. It also covers recomputation behavior, 400/404 conditions, and usage guidance about when to request more labels instead of samples. Nothing important is missing for a one-parameter read-only tool.

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 schema has one required id parameter with 100% description coverage: 'The eval run id (comparison runs only).' The tool description restates the endpoint path and comparison-run context but adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the only parameter fully.

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-plus-resource statement: 'The pairwise judge's spec sheet and calibration for a comparison run,' and includes the exact GET endpoint. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_eval_evidence or get_eval_samples by tying it to pairwise comparison-run calibration and labelled-pair statistics.

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 explicitly states read-only, no-spend behavior, and gives concrete error boundaries: 404 when the run is not in the workspace and 400 for criterion runs. It does not name a sibling alternative for criterion runs, but the exclusion is clear enough that an agent knows this tool is only for comparison runs.

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