app_ratings_by_ticker

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions paging, not whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or mutability. The format spec implies read operation but not explicitly.

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 very short but includes a full JSON schema and CSV example, which is verbose and not typical for a tool description. It is not front-loaded; the key purpose is stated first, but the bulk is a raw format dump.

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, the description covers the core purpose and provides return format details (since no output schema). However, it omits context like typical use cases, data freshness, or how paging works in practice.

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 context indicates 0% schema description coverage, meaning the description must compensate. It does not explain any parameters beyond the implicit 'ticker'. The JSON/CSV format shows output structure but not input semantics. The schema itself provides descriptions for each parameter, but the description adds no value.

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 tool name app_ratings_by_ticker combined with 'Normalized app ratings' clearly indicates it retrieves app store ratings for a given ticker. The mention of paging over 'series' hints at the data structure. However, the term 'normalized' is not explained and may confuse some agents.

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 like screener_app_ratings or other by_ticker tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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