get_trust_rating

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the return shape (overall plus per-domain ratings), the not-found behavior (found=false), and an important instruction not to infer a rating. This is strong for a read-only lookup tool, though it does not explicitly mention safety or data freshness.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose and input, return content, and the critical not-found behavior. Information is front-loaded and no filler is present.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers input, expected outputs, the not-found case, and the correct behavior when no rating exists. Nothing essential for an agent to select and call the tool 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that cqc_provider_id is the CQC provider id and supplies a realistic example ('1-101681210'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema field. It does not elaborate on id source or formatting rules, but the example and context are sufficient for correct invocation.

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 identifies the action (look up), the resource (a trust's current CQC quality rating), and the lookup key (CQC provider id), with a concrete example. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on wait times and trust profiles by explicitly focusing on CQC quality ratings.

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 states the task and input clearly enough that an agent knows when to invoke it: whenever a trust's CQC rating is needed. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the focused wording and the contrast with wait-time-related siblings imply the appropriate use case.

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