get_logged_in_user_ratings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals the HTTP method implicitly via the endpoint and that the tool is read-only, but says nothing about authentication requirements (the 'self' scope implies a logged-in session), pagination, filtering, or what the response contains. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is thin.

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 one short clause plus an endpoint path; the remainder is aggressive keyword stuffing ('rating, ratings, users crud, users, self, list, get, search, find, browse, fetch, read, read-only, mealie'). This bloats the definition and pushes the actual purpose behind noise, so it fails on both brevity and front-loading.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema read endpoint, the endpoint path and 'read-only' hint are roughly the minimum an agent needs. Missing are the authentication expectation and any statement about response shape or pagination, which would matter for a listing endpoint.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter vocabulary to explain, and the description correctly implies a no-argument call scoped to the authenticated user's own ratings.

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 does state the verb and resource ('List ratings' for the logged-in user) and includes the endpoint [GET /api/users/self/ratings], so the operation is identifiable. However, it is buried in a keyword dump that restates the tool name dozens of times, and it never distinguishes itself from the nearby sibling 'get_ratings' or 'get_logged_in_user_rating_for_recipe'. Clear enough to act on, but muddy.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance. The word 'read-only' appears only as a keyword, and the tool parenthetically lists generic verbs (search, find, browse, fetch, read) that imply usage without stating conditions. With siblings like get_ratings (all ratings) and get_logged_in_user_rating_for_recipe (single rating) adjacent, the definition should say why an agent picks this one, and it does not.

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