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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnly/non-destructive annotations: per-list cap of 200 newest items, an overall response-size cap, truncation reported via a cut list with no continuation available, knownTotals remaining accurate even when lists are cut, and a 90-day default for historyDays. It also imposes a spoiler-safety obligation (closed/spoiler rows must be withheld until the reader opts in) and a non-obvious counting rule (watched + played, excluding want) that an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the single most important constraint (own records only) and every sentence carries information with no filler. It is dense and heavily nested in parentheses, which costs some readability, but 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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, it covers the return shape, truncation semantics, default values, spoiler handling, and counting rules an agent needs to answer correctly. The only missing element is explicit competitor routing, which is minor at this complexity.

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 0%, yet the description supplies meaning for every enum value (known/favorites/history/likes/requests/notebooks) including sub-details like the want/watched/played breakdown and the fact that requests includes replies only for completed/declined. It also documents the historyDays default of 90, which the schema does not state.

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 a specific verb and resource ("いま接続している読者本人 の GameGene の記録を返す") and immediately scopes it by excluding other readers' records, which lets an agent separate it from gamegene_person without inspecting schemas.

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?

Gives clear usage guidance for the parameters ("sections で絞れ、省くと全部") and explains what each section yields, plus a soft signal that notebook bodies are not included (pointing at gamegene_notebook). It never explicitly names when to prefer the overlapping siblings gamegene_requests, gamegene_notebooks, or gamegene_genes over this aggregate call, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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