List evaluation results

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

Annotations carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral value beyond them: newest-first ordering, session deduplication, and the inclusion of queued/in-progress results that make it suitable for polling a run.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero padding, front-loading the cursor-paginated scope and ordering before the dedup rule. 'Read operation.' is a useful one-word safety restatement at the end.

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?

Complete enough given a 10-param schema with 100% coverage and annotations covering the safety profile. The only gap is the absence of any routing hint to the sibling singleton result tool, which would help in a list of ~90 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% across all 10 params, including enums for grade and status and filter semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (list) + resource (evaluation results for one evaluation) with explicit scope: 'across every agent it grades, newest first'. Names the ordering and the deduplication rule ('each session appears once with its latest result'), which distinguishes it from get_organization_evaluation_result (singular) in the sibling list.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and content, and the description notes that queued/in-progress results are included 'so a run can be followed to completion' — a hint about when to use it. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs get_organization_evaluation_result / get_organization_evaluation_metrics, and no exclusions.

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