get_rating_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get', implying a read operation, but does not state whether it is read-only, whether there are any side effects, rate limits, or what the return format looks like. No details on pagination, data granularity, or time range behavior are provided.

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 that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is not verbose and earns its place, though it is too terse to be fully effective. The structure is clean, but the brevity leaves gaps.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'source ratings' means, how 'days' affects the result, or what the response contains. An agent would lack critical details needed to call it correctly, such as the meaning of the output and any constraints.

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 0%, meaning the description does not explain any parameters. It does not mention teacher_id or days at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the raw schema. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 states a clear action ('get') and resource ('historical source ratings and review counts'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_teacher_reviews (likely current reviews) and get_teacher_analytics. However, it does not explicitly mention the teacher association, though the required teacher_id parameter implies it. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer the operation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for historical trends or when to prefer it over get_teacher_reviews or get_teacher_analytics. The description gives no context about the intended use case or exclusions.

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