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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only cover read-only/openWorld safety) by disclosing that comments are sorted newest-first, that ratings are post-completion and optional, and explicitly that participant NAMES are NOT returned and roster permission is unnecessary. These are substantive behavioral details an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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?

A single dense sentence organized as: resource, return fields, sorting, exclusions, and parameter. Every clause earns its place with zero 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?

The output schema exists, so return-shape detail in the description is a bonus rather than a requirement, and the description still fully explains what is returned, its ordering, and the privacy limitation. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description mentions 'id (uuid)' which merely repeats what the schema already documents with a uuid format and pattern; schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema field lacks a description, but the type/format is clear. No additional semantic detail about which id (trip id) is required is added, though the context makes it evident.

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+resource ('trip's participant ratings') and details the exact shape of the return (average, rater count, distribution, comments). It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling rating tools like get_my_ratings_summary or get_my_session_ratings, but the scope 'trip' is clear.

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?

Provides clear contextual conditions: ratings are 'given after the trip is completed, optional', and 'trips:roster is not required', signaling when this tool applies. It doesn't name an alternative sibling or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of the top score.

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