Get My Ratings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value with the quota cost ('Quota: 1 unit') and the authorization scoping implied by 'authorized user', but says nothing about pagination or how batched video lookups behave.

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?

Two short lines, result semantics front-loaded, quota cost isolated on its own line. Nothing is padded and nothing important is buried.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the schema and annotations carry parameters and safety. However, for an agent choosing among many sibling tools the description supplies no routing context (e.g. read ratings vs. set them with rate_video), leaving a real gap.

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 100% and both parameters (videos, my_channel) are fully documented in the schema, including batching detail. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific resource and result: the authorized user's like/dislike state for each video. It is clearly a read of ratings, distinguishable from the sibling rate_video (which sets a rating), though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as rate_video or get_videos. The only contextual cue is the quota note, which is cost information rather than usage guidance.

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