get_meal_rating

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets average ratings', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, how ratings are calculated (e.g., from recent feedback), rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get average ratings for a meal') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and doesn't include unnecessary details, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (simple retrieval), high schema coverage (100%), and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context (e.g., authentication needs, data freshness) and usage guidelines, which are important for a tool in a system with many siblings. It's complete enough to understand what it does but not how to use it effectively.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (meal, date, mess) with descriptions and constraints. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the rating aggregation method or date range implications. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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 clearly states the action ('Get average ratings') and resource ('for a meal'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'submit_feedback' or 'get_meal_rates' by focusing specifically on rating retrieval rather than submission or pricing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other rating-related tools (none exist in siblings), so it's not a perfect 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing prior feedback submission), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_meal_capacities' or 'get_menu'. Usage is implied only by the name and purpose, with no explicit context for selection.

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