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

Annotations already establish this as a read-only, non-destructive call. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact: listener names are omitted from the response, which signals a privacy constraint an agent could not get from annotations. It stops there, saying nothing about pagination or volume of ratings returned.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the returned resource, then the privacy note, then the parameter. No filler, though the closing "Params: id (uuid)" adds little beyond the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is routing among the many ratings-related siblings and disambiguation of the single id, which matters for correct invocation.

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 0%, but there is only one self-evident parameter. The description does no more than restate it as "id (uuid)" and never clarifies whether the id is a session id or a tour id — a real ambiguity given the name says session and the description says tour.

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 the resource ("Ratings of one of your tours") and enumerates the returned fields (score, comment, report status), which is more than a tautology. However it conflates "tours" with the "session" naming used in the tool name and title, and gives no distinction from close siblings like get_my_trip_ratings, get_my_ratings_summary, or list_my_ratings.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_my_trip_ratings, list_my_ratings, or get_my_ratings_summary, all of which sit in the same ratings family. The reader must infer the distinction purely from the name and the single required id.

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