get_program_ratings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add context by clarifying that results are 'all-time' and 'across all available seasons,' implying aggregation across the full dataset. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, if authentication is needed, or any potential side effects or limitations.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and uses two short sentences plus a 'Returns' label. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or filler. It is well-structured for quick scanning by an AI agent.

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 (zero parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It states the return type ('JSON array of program ratings') and the scope ('all-time... across all available seasons'). It could have clarified what constitutes a 'program rating,' but for a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, this is adequate.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per calibration, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details because none exist, and the schema already fully covers the parameter surface.

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 function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('historical program ratings'), and elaborates with 'Returns the all-time program rankings based on historical performance across all available seasons.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_ratings' by specifying the program-level scope.

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. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or situations where another tool (e.g., get_ratings) would be more appropriate. It is purely descriptive with no usage context.

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