get-video-rating

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds quota cost and a 50-video batch limit, but does not mention error handling, response shape, or how unrated videos are represented. The word 'Get' implies a read operation, but more detail would improve transparency.

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 sentence that front-loads the core function, then adds quota cost. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose, the rating values (like/dislike/none), the batch limit, and quota cost. It does not detail response structure or auth requirements, but those are partially inferred from 'authenticated user's'. Overall, it is quite complete.

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 schema provides only 'Video IDs' with min/max constraints, while the description adds semantic meaning by clarifying these are the videos for which the authenticated user's rating is retrieved. It reinforces the 50-video limit already present in 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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves the authenticated user's rating (like/dislike/none) for up to 50 videos. The verb 'Get' plus the specific resource 'authenticated user's rating' distinguishes it from write-focused siblings like 'rate-video'.

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 implies this tool is for reading the current user's own ratings, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'rate-video' or 'list-videos'. No exclusions or alternative references are given.

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