get_users_by_id_ratings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful pagination behavior: defaults are low, limits are capped, and higher values are clamped rather than rejected. Still, it does not clarify open-world response behavior or what 'extended' actually changes.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the endpoint, followed by clear arg definitions. The pagination explanation is somewhat verbose but earns its place by adding behavioral nuance. No redundant 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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description is mostly adequate for invocation. However, it misses guidance on choosing among the many ratings sibling tools and leaves 'extended' underspecified. An agent could call this tool correctly but may not know when it is the right choice.

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 has no property descriptions, so the description carries the full burden. It explains id as a slug or 'me', page and limit with concrete default/clamping behavior, and extended as 'extended information to include'—though the last one remains vague. Overall, this is substantially more meaning than the bare schema provides.

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 identifies a GET operation on a specific resource ('/users/{id}/ratings/') and says it retrieves ratings. However, 'Get all ratings' is terse and does not differentiate this from the many ratings-related siblings such as get_users_by_id_ratings_movies, get_users_by_id_ratings_shows, and get_users_by_id_ratings_by_type_by_rating.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus the sibling rating endpoints, nor when a more specific endpoint should be preferred. The description explains mechanics like pagination but not the selection context. The agent is left to infer that 'all ratings' means the unfiltered set.

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