Get Users Self Ratings By Recipe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully conveys that the rating is scoped to the logged-in user and that a single rating is returned for a recipe. However, it does not disclose what happens when no rating exists (e.g., null vs 404/error), rate limits, or other response behaviors.

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 short sentence with no filler and the core action is front-loaded. However, it is under-specified rather than richly concise: it omits parameter context, usage guidance, and edge-case behavior, so the brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 simple 2-parameter read operation with an output schema, the description provides a minimally viable invocation path: pass recipe_id and expect a rating. But the lack of guidance around accept-language, missing-rating behavior, and the relationship to sibling rating endpoints leaves the context incomplete for reliable tool selection.

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% and the description never mentions recipe_id or accept-language. The word 'Recipe' loosely maps to recipe_id, but that connection is already evident from the parameter name and tool title; accept-language is completely unexplained. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and names the resource ('Logged In User Rating For Recipe'), so an agent can tell it fetches a single rating rather than a list. However, it closely mirrors the tool name/title and does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_users_self_ratings or list_users_by_id_ratings.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_users_self_ratings, which lists all self ratings, or list_users_by_id_ratings. Prerequisites like authentication are only implied by the phrase 'Logged In User' and no exclusions or alternative conditions are stated.

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