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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns individual ratings with score, comment, both usernames, date, and API-origin flag, and clarifies that job results only show averages. It doesn't mention pagination or ordering, but for a read tool with strong annotations this is a minor gap.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it opens with the core value proposition (individual ratings with review text, not just averages), then gives parameter usage in order of importance. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema content.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what data is returned, how to select the target, and the mutual exclusivity constraint. It doesn't specify ordering or pagination, but the annotations cover safety and the parameter semantics are fully documented. The tool is simple enough that this is nearly complete.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining the semantic distinction between 'received' and 'given', clarifying that direction is only meaningful with username, and stating the exactly-one-required constraint. It doesn't add format details beyond the schema, but the schema is already rich.

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 clearly states the tool reads individual ratings including review text, not just averages. It distinguishes from the inline job results and names the two access modes (username or job_id). The title and description align, and the tool is easily differentiated from siblings like submit_rating and get_bids.

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 description explicitly states when to use each parameter: pass username for all ratings a user received, add direction 'given' for ones they left, pass job_id for both ratings on a job. It also states the mutual exclusivity requirement and that exactly one of username or job_id is required. This is clear routing guidance with no ambiguity.

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