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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output is an aggregate summary with specific metrics, which is mild behavioral context. It does not disclose sampling windows, auth requirements, or rate limits, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

One short sentence that front-loads the subject ("Your ratings summary") and lists the returned metrics. Every word earns its place with no filler.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values in detail, and it does specify the key metrics. The description is complete for a zero-parameter read-only tool, though it could mention the absence of filtering or the 1-5 scale context. Given the output schema and annotations, this is sufficient.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description accurately conveys that no filtering arguments are needed, consistent with the empty schema. No additional parameter meaning is required.

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 a specific verb-resource pair: it returns the user's ratings summary with total count, average score, and 1-5 star distribution. This distinguishes it from list_my_ratings (raw list) and get_my_ratings_trend (time series), but the description doesn't explicitly name those siblings or frame the distinction.

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 summary nature of the tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like get_my_ratings_trend or list_my_ratings. The agent is left to infer that this returns an aggregate overview rather than raw ratings.

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