get_appraisal_ratings

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

Without annotations, the description adequately conveys that this is a read-only operation (starts with 'View') and explains the meaning of status values. It does not reveal any potential side effects, but the nature of the tool is simple and non-destructive.

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 concise with four informative sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, listing output, explaining status, and providing usage context. No redundant or verbose elements.

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 simplicity (no parameters, has output schema), the description covers essential aspects: purpose, output fields, status meanings, and usage hint. It could mention that it's a read operation or require manager role, but these are implied.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so no parameter descriptions are needed. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds value by detailing the output fields and status values, which are relevant to the tool's behavior.

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 tool's purpose: viewing employees needing ratings in the current appraisal cycle. It uses a specific verb ('View') and identifies the target user ('PM/Manager view'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_my_appraisal' by focusing on rating others.

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 clear guidance on when to use the tool: to check who still needs rating before the deadline. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context and alternative sibling tools make it sufficiently clear.

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