List rating algorithms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral content by disclosing that results include tunable parameters, their defaults, and their value ranges, which tells the agent this call doubles as configuration documentation. It stops short of describing the returned structure or ordering.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and then qualifies the payload. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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-param, non-destructive read with no output schema, the agent knows what it will get back at a content level (algorithms, tunables, defaults, ranges). Minor gap: the shape of the response (per-algorithm grouping, ordering, how ranges are expressed) is unspecified, but that is a small omission for a simple listing tool.

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 no parameters (empty object schema, 100% coverage), so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the input level.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('rating algorithms') and an explicit statement of what the payload carries ('tunable parameters with defaults and ranges'). Nothing among the siblings (parsers, matchers, image/URL utilities) overlaps with this discovery function, so an agent can select it unambiguously.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the discovery step before calling rate_matches or predict_match, but the description never says so, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. Adequate for a zero-parameter read tool, but the when-to-use routing 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.