get_logged_in_user_rating_for_recipe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it mostly does not. The embedded 'read-only' keyword and the GET verb imply a safe read, but nothing is said about authentication requirements, 404 behavior when the user has not rated the recipe, or the shape of the returned rating.

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 useful content is a single line at the top; everything after it is a keyword list that repeats the tool name and generic CRUD/HTTP verbs with no informational value. Structure is front-loaded but heavily padded.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for all three, and it does not. An agent knows roughly what it fetches but not what it receives or under what conditions it fails.

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% and the single recipe_id parameter has no description in the schema. The description only exposes it via the path template {recipe_id}, which implies it identifies the recipe but adds no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond that.

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 title restatement plus 'Get rating' and the endpoint [GET /api/users/self/ratings/{recipe_id}] together convey that this fetches the current user's rating for one specific recipe. However, it never distinguishes itself from the very close siblings get_ratings and get_logged_in_user_ratings, so an agent must infer the difference from the name alone.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance at all; the body is a restated title, an HTTP path, and a keyword dump. The agent gets no signal about choosing this over get_ratings (all ratings) or set_rating (write counterpart).

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