List evaluations

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the required permission scope (organization:manage_evaluations), the Enterprise plan requirement, and that results are cursor-paginated. It does not, however, describe pagination behavior in more depth or any rate limits.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return content, then the permission gate and read-only nature. No filler or redundancy.

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 correctly names the returned data (targets, coverage, result rollups) and the permission prerequisite. Pagination is mentioned and the parameters are fully schema-documented. Minor gap: no guidance on navigating to related results or metric tools.

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 all four parameters (cursor, account, page_size, organization_id) are already documented. The description only echoes the cursor-pagination concept, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema. 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?

The description names a specific verb (list) and resource (an organization's evaluations) and details what is returned: targets, coverage, and result rollups. It is clearly distinguishable in scope from the bare list_evaluations sibling, though it never explicitly names that sibling to route the agent.

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 'Read operation' and the permission note, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to the alternatives (e.g., list_evaluations, get_organization_evaluation). The prerequisite gate (Enterprise plan, organization:manage_evaluations) is the only real usage signal.

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