get_rating_distribution

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by describing the return format ('rating buckets with counts and percentages, plus statistics') and grouping capabilities. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid parameters. The description adds useful context but leaves gaps in behavioral 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 efficiently structured in two sentences that front-load the core functionality and follow with supporting details. Every phrase earns its place by either specifying the tool's purpose, describing the output format, or explaining grouping capabilities. There's no wasted language or 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description does well by covering the core functionality, output format, and grouping capabilities. However, it could be more complete by mentioning the absence of an output schema (users must infer the return structure from the description) and providing more guidance on when this tool is most appropriate versus sibling 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the grouping capability ('Supports grouping by subscription, account, or group for comparative analysis') and clarifying the statistical output ('average, min, max, total count'), which helps users understand the tool's capabilities beyond individual parameter documentation. However, it doesn't provide additional syntax or format details for parameters beyond what's 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get rating distribution', 'Returns rating buckets with counts and percentages, plus statistics') and identifies the resources involved ('provider and/or patient ratings'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing specifically on rating distribution analysis rather than entity finding, field indexing, or other breakdown types.

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 usage context through phrases like 'over a time period' and 'for comparative analysis', suggesting this tool should be used when temporal analysis or grouped comparisons are needed. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_usage_summary' or 'get_visit_trends', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites for usage.

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