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. It discloses that it returns self-ratings and explains the rating scale meaning, which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, authentication requirements, or side effects (though likely none). It does provide insight into how the output should be interpreted, which adds behavioral context. Overall, adequate but not comprehensive for a getter with no annotation coverage.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, parameter usage, and rating interpretation. The purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct value without redundancy. No wasted words or filler. Efficient and well-structured.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not detail return format. It covers both parameters, their allowed values, and optionality, and adds interpretive guidance. It is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. Minor omission: exact string casing for type values (e.g., 'movies' vs 'movie'), but likely implied. Overall, complete enough.

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 descriptions are completely absent (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It clearly explains the 'type' parameter values (movies, shows, anime) and the 'rating' parameter range (1-10) and optionality (omit for all). It adds semantic meaning to rating values as positive/negative signals, going beyond simple type definitions. This is strong parameter documentation.

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 tool retrieves titles the user has rated, specifying the resource and scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_library or lookup_watched, but the resource is distinct enough that an agent can infer its purpose. The note about ratings as positive/negative seeds adds context but does not aid sibling differentiation.

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 explains parameter usage (type and rating) but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. It does not say 'use this when you need the user's ratings for recommendations' or exclude other tools. The rating semantics provide interpretive guidance, not tool-selection guidance. The usage is implied from the purpose, not explicitly stated.

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