Get evaluation options

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

Annotations already carry the read-only/idempotent/openWorld safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds substantive value by disclosing the scope of what is returned (the enumerated value categories plus size limits), which the annotations do not convey. "Read operation" is redundant with readOnlyHint but harmless.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the usage directive, in three tight sentences with no filler. The category list is long but it is the actual content an agent needs, so it earns its space.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned value categories and size limits, and it notes the read-only nature. Nothing critical is missing for a zero-required-param lookup tool, though it could tie itself more explicitly to the evaluation siblings.

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% and the single 'account' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level guidance, so the baseline of 3 applies 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 resource ('Allowed values for evaluation fields and filters') and enumerates the categories it covers (session types, criterion types, frequencies, grades, statuses, etc.), which clearly separates it from config/evaluation siblings. It never names a sibling directly, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

"Use these instead of hardcoding enums" gives a clear usage directive that tells the agent why and when to prefer this tool. There are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives (e.g., get_evaluation_config vs. this), but the context is clear.

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