Retrieve evaluation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's 'Read operation' simply restates readOnlyHint, adding no new behavioral detail; the only real addition is the agent-ownership constraint, and nothing is said about error behavior when ownership fails.

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 with the primary action front-loaded and no wasted prose. The trailing 'Read operation' clause is redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation, which is a minor inefficiency.

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?

For a simple read-only fetch by ID with full schema coverage, complete annotations and no nested objects, the definition covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. The absence of an output schema means the return shape is undocumented, a small residual gap.

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 three parameters (including the account selector, aliases, and min lengths) are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the agent_id/evaluation_id pairing and adds no syntax or format detail, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve a single evaluation result by ID'), and the agent/ownership scoping sets it apart from list-style siblings like list_evaluations. It does not explicitly name the closest alternative (get_organization_evaluation), so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

The constraint 'must belong to the specified agent' gives useful context for when this call is valid, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion versus get_organization_evaluation / list_evaluations. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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