List evaluations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: pagination ordering (newest first), the default status filter, and the full shape of a returned evaluation (grade, criteria, data points, tags, sentiment). The trailing 'Read operation' merely repeats readOnlyHint, which is minor redundancy rather than a contradiction.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and pagination/ordering facts, then the default filter, then returned fields. Efficient overall, but the final 'Read operation.' sentence restates the readOnlyHint annotation and does not earn its place.

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 usefully enumerates what each evaluation contains and documents ordering and the default status filter. It omits only minor things an agent might want (e.g., the account param's credential scoping), but is essentially complete for a filtered list 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 the parameter baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying the default status set that `status` overrides and by implying cursor-based pagination ties to `next_cursor`. It does not enrich the other parameters (account, grade, date bounds), keeping it short of 5.

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 a cursor-paginated list), resource (evaluation results), and scope (for a specific agent, newest first). The agent-scoping distinguishes it from list_organization_evaluations and list_organization_evaluation_results without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly states the default lifecycle set (completed and failed) and how `status` overrides it, which is real usage context. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., list_organization_evaluations, retrieve_evaluation) or when-not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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