Get evaluation config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read operation' is largely redundant. The description does add useful disclosure about what the configuration contains (criteria, tags, data points, sentiment settings), but says nothing about permissions, account scoping behavior, or failure modes beyond that.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and contents. The trailing 'Read operation' sentence is the only near-wasteful element since annotations already convey read-only status, but overall the description is tight and well-ordered.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return content, and it does so by enumerating the configuration sections returned. It is adequate for a simple two-parameter read tool, though it omits any note on when the config might be empty or missing for an agent.

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 100%, so both parameters (account and agent_id) are already fully documented, including the gumball/analytics aliases. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter behavior, which is the expected baseline-3 outcome when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (the current evaluation configuration for an agent), plus enumerates what it covers: criteria, tags, data points, sentiment settings. It is distinguishable from update_evaluation_config by the 'current' read framing, but it never names or contrasts with any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 alternatives such as get_evaluation_options, list_evaluations, or get_evaluation_metrics, all of which appear in the sibling list. 'Read operation' is a behavioral note, not usage guidance; the agent must infer applicability from the resource name alone.

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