Retrieve evaluation result

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the polling-until-terminal-status pattern. The closing 'Read operation.' merely restates readOnlyHint, so it earns no extra credit.

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 tight sentences, front-loading what the result contains before the polling instruction. No filler.

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 partially describe the return payload (per-criterion outcomes, data points, tags), and it explains the polling lifecycle. It could say more about the status field values or error shape, but it is largely sufficient for a simple 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 description coverage is 100%, so evaluation_id, result_id, and account are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 (a single organization evaluation result), and enumerates its contents (per-criterion outcomes, extracted data points, applied tags). The singular 'One result' clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_organization_evaluation_results.

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?

Gives an explicit operational condition: poll this after POST /evaluations/{evaluation_id}/run until status is completed or failed. That is strong when-to-use guidance, though it does not explicitly name the sibling list tool as the alternative for enumerating results.

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