Get evaluation metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the window semantics and that the result is aggregate grade counts, but 'Read operation' merely repeats the annotations and no auth, scoping, or aggregation-freshness context is provided.

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 the return value and window. The trailing 'Read operation.' is largely dead weight given the readOnlyHint annotation, but the overall size is well controlled.

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 should carry the burden of describing the return payload; 'grade counts' hints at it but does not say what grades or runs are included. Annotations cover the safety profile, so the remaining gaps are modest but real for a metrics-read tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema. The description's restatement of the default (30 days) and bounds (1–365) duplicates the schema, and it adds nothing about the 'account' parameter or the evaluation_id requirement. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource (grade counts for one evaluation) and the temporal scope (trailing window, default 30 days, 1–365). It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling get_evaluation_metrics, leaving the agent to infer the organization-level distinction from the name 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternative named. Given siblings such as get_evaluation_metrics and list_organization_evaluation_results, the description should tell the agent which one to pick, but it does not.

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