get_users_by_id_ratings_episodes

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

The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it specifies the HTTP GET method, explains pagination defaults and clamping behavior, and clarifies that id can be 'me'. The read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations already cover the safety profile, so the description adds meaningful but not exhaustive context.

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 with the core action and endpoint, followed by a compact Args block. It avoids fluff, though the extended parameter explanation could be more precise without bloating the 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 read-only ratings retrieval endpoint, the description covers the essential invocation details: endpoint, id semantics, pagination behavior, and extended info. The output schema handles return-value documentation, so the missing usage alternatives and extended values are the main completeness gaps.

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 description provides meaning for all four parameters, especially id ('slug or me') and page/limit (with defaults and clamping). However, 'extended: Extended information to include in the response' is vague and does not enumerate valid values, which is a notable gap given the schema has no parameter 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?

The description clearly states 'Get episode ratings' and provides the exact endpoint. It identifies the resource (episode ratings for a user) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_users_by_id_ratings_movies or get_users_by_id_ratings_shows; the resource name is specific enough to infer the distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative ratings endpoints. The endpoint and args imply the context, but no explicit when-to-use, exclusions, or alternative routing is provided.

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