get_user_ratings

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic function, omitting details like authentication, rate limits, data freshness, or that it returns a list of ratings. Schema covers pagination, but description adds no behavioral context.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it lacks structure (e.g., no mention of return format or example usage). It is efficient but could be slightly enhanced.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should compensate by explaining what 'ratings' are, how domain affects results, and the behavior when multiple filters are combined. It fails to provide this context, leaving gaps for agent understanding.

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 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, only implying that phone and email are filter criteria. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'user ratings', and specifies filtering by phone ID and/or email ID. It is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools which are about ads.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states what it does, without any context on prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions.

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