Get Hocametre Instructor Ratings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it discloses the read-only return nature, anonymity, rating scale with vote counts, optional comment retrieval, and the no-login requirement. It does not describe error behavior for unknown slugs or rate-limit/authorization edge cases, but for a straightforward read tool the visible behavior is transparent enough.

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 entire purpose fits into one front-loaded sentence, with the parenthetical rating breakdown and 'No login required' each adding genuinely useful information. There is no filler, redundancy, or repetition of the tool name or schema.

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 low-complexity read tool with an output schema, the description covers the core invocation needs: target identity, what data is returned, optional comments, and authentication. It is slightly incomplete about how to obtain the slug and what comment_limit controls, but those are minor given the schema titles and the presence of sibling search/lookup tools.

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%, so the description must compensate; it clarifies that the slug identifies a single instructor profile and that comments are optional, reflecting include_comments. However, comment_limit is never mentioned, so one of three parameters is left unexplained, leaving a clear gap despite the partial compensation.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource — 'Return one instructor profile's anonymous student ratings' — and enumerates the rating dimensions and scale, making the tool's function unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hocametre_search_instructors and hocametre_lookup_instructors, which are about discovery rather than retrieving a single profile's 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?

It implies the intended use is when a slug is available and the agent wants a single instructor's ratings and optional comments, and 'No login required' adds useful access context. However, it never says when not to use it or points to hocametre_search_instructors/hocametre_lookup_instructors for finding a slug, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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