my_ratings

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the pagination mechanics (per-page window, cursor chaining) that annotations cannot express. It doesn't state what an exhausted/absent cursor yields, but the output schema carries next_cursor.

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?

One-line purpose, one-line routing rule, then a tight Args list. Front-loaded and every sentence carries either routing or parameter meaning; nothing is redundant.

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 an output schema present, return values needn't be described, and pagination plus alternatives are covered. Only minor edges are unaddressed, such as behavior on an invalid or expired cursor.

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% and the schema declares no enums, yet the Args block defines all four parameters: sort values (recent = by date rated, top = by rating given), order (DESC/ASC), limit with the 250 ceiling, and cursor tied to next_cursor from the prior page. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

States the resource precisely — the configured user's own ratings — and adds the paginated scope ('one page at a time'), which separates it from bulk-aggregate siblings. It stops short of an explicit verb ('list/retrieve') but the meaning is unambiguous against my_ratings-style siblings.

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?

Names the alternatives explicitly (find_my_ratings, my_rating_stats) and the condition that selects them: 'questions over the whole history'. That leaves the agent with a clear rule for when to use this tool versus its two closest siblings.

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