Retrieve evaluation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. "Read operation" merely echoes those annotations and earns no credit. The content inventory (rubric, targets, coverage, rollup) is genuinely useful, but it describes output shape rather than behavior—no auth requirements, scoping, or rate/limit context is added.

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, with the substantive content (what is returned) front-loaded. "Read operation." is redundant with the annotations and could be dropped, but overall the definition is tight with no padding.

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 does the right thing by naming the returned components, which is the strongest part of this definition. What is missing is disambiguation from the near-identically named retrieve_evaluation and the other evaluation siblings, a real risk in a toolset this crowded.

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 account and evaluation_id are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about parameter format, defaults, or how account selection affects visibility. Baseline 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 verb ("Returns one evaluation") and enumerates what comes back: rubric, targets, current coverage, result rollup. That is far more than a restatement of the name. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling "retrieve_evaluation" (which likely carries the same title) or from "get_evaluation_config"/"get_organization_evaluation_result", so an agent cannot disambiguate from the text alone.

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 only guidance offered is "Read operation," which is not a when-to-use statement. There is no mention of when to pick this over retrieve_evaluation, list_organization_evaluations, or get_evaluation_config, and no prerequisites stated. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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