Rating breakdown across markets

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveness. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the average is over recent reviews rather than the lifetime rating Apple displays, and these two values can differ. This warns the agent about an important semantic quirk.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the core output, the use case, and a crucial caveat. The most identifying information is front-loaded, and there is no repetition of schema details or generic 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (counts and averages, per storefront and combined, no review text) and highlights the recent-reviews caveat. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it does not enumerate exact response fields.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces the notion of counts and averages and the per-storefront grouping, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Rating counts and averages for a show') and clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling review tools by emphasizing 'without returning the review text.' It also explains the per-storefront and combined breakdown, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool produces.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: use this to assess where a show is loved before spending a larger call on review bodies. It implies the alternative (get_reviews) and the advantage of this tool, though it does not name the sibling explicitly or state when not to use it.

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