get_ofsted_ratings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for transparency. It thoroughly discloses what is returned: overall effectiveness grade, grades for each inspection area, inspection dates, type, and previous grades. It also reveals the data source (Ofsted Management Information files published monthly). While it does not discuss error handling or permissions, the detailed output description gives a solid behavioral picture.

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 compact, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place. It starts with the core purpose, then details return values, and ends with the data source. There is no redundant wording or filler, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what data is returned in detail and the source/frequency of the data. It omits edge-case behavior (e.g., invalid URN, missing data) but covers the essential functionality well. The absence of an output schema makes the description's detailed list of returned fields especially valuable.

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 input schema already describes the only parameter (`urn`) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description reinforces that the URN is the lookup key and explains how it is used, but does not add new semantic details about the parameter format or constraints beyond the schema. Therefore, it neither undercuts nor significantly elevates the schema's explanation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get Ofsted inspection ratings and grades for a school by URN.' This clearly states the tool's function and differentiates it from siblings like search_schools and get_school_details, which focus on discovery or broader details. No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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 clearly states the prerequisite ('by URN') and the purpose, implying the tool should be used when a URN is known and Ofsted ratings are needed. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over siblings like get_school_details, but the dedicated focus on Ofsted data provides sufficient context. Lacking explicit exclusions or alternative references, it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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