Star ratings over time

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: no mention of request/quota cost (which the schema's dry_run hints exists), no return shape, no pagination or row-width caveats.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the data is, then the one parameter distinction that matters, then the failure mode to avoid. No filler.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and a breakdown/date_granularity interaction the schema only half-documents, the description covers only the bundle enum. An agent still lacks the returned column shape and the breakdown granularity contract.

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 64% and the bundle parameter has no schema description, so the description meaningfully fills that gap by explaining incremental vs cumulative semantics and warning that plain `ratings` is invalid. However, it says nothing about the other nine parameters (breakdown, date_granularity coupling, regions, fields, format, limit).

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 the resource and the payload ('Rating counts and averages') and clarifies it is a time-series ratings feed, which distinguishes it from sensortower_reviews (review text) and sensortower_review_breakdown. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over sensortower_reviews or sensortower_review_breakdown, nor any statement of prerequisites beyond the required app_ids/date window implied by the schema. The bundle discussion is parameter semantics, not usage routing.

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