Get Ratings Report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose some behavior—daily and total average aggregation over a month—but says nothing about read-only semantics, permissions, data freshness, or limitations. It is not misleading, and the disclosed aggregation behavior is genuinely useful, but more could be said.

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 extremely compact: eight words and no wasted content. Every word adds signal about what the report contains, and the core information is front-loaded. This is concise without being under-specified.

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?

The tool is a simple report GET with full parameter schema and an output schema, so a long description is unnecessary. The description covers the essential result characteristics—daily and total average rating for a month. The main gap is the lack of explicit sibling differentiation, but for this complexity level the description is otherwise complete enough.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount of context by indicating the month scope and the aggregate rating concept, but it does not explain parameter formats or dimension values beyond what the schema already provides.

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 metric (average rating), the granularity (daily and total), and the time scope (one month), so an agent understands what the report contains. It lacks an explicit verb, but the tool name supplies 'get' and the content is specific enough to distinguish it from vaguely named siblings.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_reviews, get_store_performance_report, or get_installs_report. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or explicit conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description.

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