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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds non-obvious behavioral context: the result set spans all sessions and, notably, 'Listener names are not returned' — a privacy/return-content constraint not derivable from the schema. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a read-only list tool that is acceptable.

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?

Front-loaded with the scope and the sibling exclusion before the filter enumeration. Three sentences, no filler — every clause carries either a routing constraint, a behavioral caveat, or a parameter format.

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, return values need no explanation. All 10 parameters are accounted for via the filter/pagination enumeration, the resource is scoped, and the trip-ratings boundary is drawn — nothing an agent needs to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is only 40%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it enumerates every filter with format hints (minRating/maxRating 1-5, hasComment 'true'|'false', flagged 'true'|'false', sort newest|oldest|highest|lowest, dateFrom/dateTo YYYY-MM-DD) and notes pagination via page/limit. It stops short of stating defaults (page=1, limit=20) or the limit cap of 100, which the schema does expose.

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 (List) and resource (ratings) with the exact scope: 'Ratings listeners left after your live tour sessions,' plus 'feed across all your sessions.' It also explicitly names the sibling it is not, get_my_trip_ratings, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Clearly routes the agent away from this tool for trip ratings by naming get_my_trip_ratings as the alternative. However, it is silent on the other obvious siblings for this same resource — get_my_ratings_summary, get_my_ratings_trend, and get_my_session_ratings — so the when-to-use-versus-those decision is left to inference.

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