get_evaluation_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses what the response contains (status, progress, summary, timestamps) in lieu of an output schema, but says nothing about read-only nature, not-found/error behavior, or permissions.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler; the return-field list is compact. It is terse to the point of omitting usage context, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers both intent and the returned payload, which is the main thing an agent needs. Only error/not-found handling and id-source guidance are missing, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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 single parameter evaluation_run_id has 0% schema description coverage and the description adds no meaning of its own — no format, no source of the id, no distinction between run id and evaluation id. The self-evident name is the only guide the agent gets.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get one evaluation run's detail') and enumerates the returned fields (status, progress, summary, timestamps), which cleanly separates it from list_evaluation_runs and list_evaluation_run_results. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus list_evaluation_runs, list_evaluation_run_results, or get_evaluation, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The singular phrasing only implicitly signals 'one run by id'.

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