get_ratings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'Get' but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. This leaves critical behavioral traits undefined for safe and effective use.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan and understand quickly, which is ideal for conciseness in tool descriptions.

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 the complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or how parameters interact (e.g., pagination with limit/offset). For a tool fetching data with multiple inputs, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its full context and usage.

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 33% (only 'slug' has a description), so the description must compensate but doesn't add any parameter details. It mentions 'ratings and reviews for a service', which loosely relates to 'slug', but provides no extra meaning for 'limit' or 'offset'. Baseline is 3 due to the partial schema coverage, but the description adds minimal value.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'ratings and reviews for a service', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_service' or 'compare_services' that might also involve service information, leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_service' and 'compare_services', there's no indication of whether this tool is for detailed reviews, aggregated ratings, or how it complements other tools, leaving the agent to guess based on context.

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