find_evaluations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that the tool returns matches annotated with 'identifier' and 'display_names', implying read-only behavior. However, it does not explicitly confirm that no mutations occur, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions, or performance characteristics. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise, consisting of three short paragraphs. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. Examples and a usage note follow without excess. Every sentence adds value, though the note on tag consistency could be integrated more succinctly.

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 simplicity (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema (which covers return structure), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what is returned (identifier and display_names), gives usage patterns, and sets expectations about tag conventions. It lacks explicit mention of counterparty scope or authentication, but these are minor gaps.

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 a single required parameter 'tag' with no description (schema coverage 0%). The description compensates somewhat by providing three concrete example tags ('missed_deadline', 'shipped_on_time', 'unreliable') and noting that tag vocabulary is agent-convention. However, it does not define what a tag is, its format, or constraints, leaving some ambiguity.

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 clearly states the tool searches 'Tier-1 evaluations across all counterparties by tag'. It uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('evaluations'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'add_evaluation' (which adds) and 'evaluate_agent' (which evaluates). The scope ('across all counterparties') further differentiates it.

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 provides example usage patterns (e.g., find_evaluations('missed_deadline')) and advises on tag consistency, which helps the agent understand typical use. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or suggest alternatives, though this is less critical for a simple search tool.

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