get_ratings

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently discloses that without poll_url the tool blocks up to 5 minutes and that with poll_url it skips the job startup and 30s delay. However, it does not mention error handling or what happens if the job fails, which would be beneficial.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then the key behavioral nuances. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 absence of output schema, the description names the returned data (overall, potential, per-attribute) and explains the two usage modes. It covers the essential behavioral details, though it could be more precise about the exact output format or pagination. Still, it is fairly complete for an async result retrieval tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the description adds meaningful context: for poll_url, it explains that it skips startup and delay; for player_ids, it clarifies that the full job still runs but only matching results are returned. This adds value beyond the raw 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 clearly states that the tool retrieves player ratings (overall, potential, per-attribute) and explains the two modes: using a poll_url to collect results or starting a new job. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_ratings_job (which creates the job) and get_players (which retrieves player info, not 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the poll_url parameter (to skip job startup) and when to omit it (to start a new job). It also mentions the blocking behavior (~5 minutes) and the 30s initial delay, giving the agent clear context for decision-making.

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