my_rating_for

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context that a rating may not exist ('if anything') and that the id comes from search_titles, but it does not elaborate on authentication/configured-user behavior or response details.

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 short and front-loaded: the core behavior appears in the first sentence, followed by a compact Args note. No unnecessary text.

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 one-parameter read operation with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the purpose, id source, and that absence is possible. Minor gaps remain around the 'configured user' context, but nothing essential is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It identifies the sole parameter as a title id and gives its source ('from search_titles'), which is meaningful context beyond the schema's bare type string.

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 a specific verb/resource: fetch the configured user's rating for one title, including the possibility that no rating exists. It implicitly distinguishes itself from plural/list siblings like my_ratings through 'one title', but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you need the configured user's rating for a specific title, using an id obtained from search_titles. It does not explicitly say when to use my_ratings or find_my_ratings instead, so the guidance is adequate but not fully explicit.

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