MyAnimeTracker

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world lookup. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the limited reviewed catalog, that it reports when a series is not covered, and that output is episode numbers only with no plot details.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds compact clarifications about novel adaptations, coverage limits, and output scope. It is dense but each sentence contributes useful context, though the novel-adaptation definition is slightly wordy relative to the rest.

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, no-output-schema tool with two fully documented parameters, the description covers what the tool returns, what it excludes, how coverage limits are handled, and how to provide the series identifier. An agent has enough information to call it correctly without needing more.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both the title and mal_id parameters, including the preference for catalog ID when available. The description only restates 'Give a title or a catalog ID' and does not add format, fallback, or precedence details beyond the schema.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: it lists filler/recap episodes to skip, mixed episodes to keep, and separate novel adaptations. This clearly tells an agent what the tool returns. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like get_watch_order or search_anime, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 gives clear usage context: it is for identifying episodes to skip versus keep, clarifies what counts as a novel adaptation, and notes that coverage is limited to a small reviewed set of series. It stops short of naming alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the intended use case is easy to infer.

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

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the scope of the guide and the release-order caveat, though it does not discuss missing-data behavior beyond 'when known' or result limits.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and is appropriately brief. The final sentence about title or catalog ID partially duplicates the schema, but overall it remains efficient and readable.

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-only lookup with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the result contains and what input to provide. It could be slightly more complete by addressing ambiguous titles or no-result handling, but it is adequate overall.

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 100%, so both parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description only restates that a title or catalog ID is accepted, adding little semantic detail beyond the schema's own guidance.

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 states a specific verb and resource: get the release-order watch guide for an anime franchise. It further specifies the contents (seasons, films, specials, start point, filler) and explicitly distinguishes release order from story chronology, which helps separate it from a generic search or filler-only tool.

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?

It gives useful input guidance ('Give a title or a catalog ID') and clarifies that this is release order, not chronology. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus siblings like search_anime or get_filler_guide, so the agent must infer that from context.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description still adds substantive traits: aggregate counts only ('never who'), an SFW-only content filter, and a week-to-month window fallback. It also states what is returned (titles plus add-counts), so the agent knows the shape of the result despite no output schema.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the ranking criterion, then the fallback window, privacy guarantee, and content filter. No redundant restatement of the title or of schema-declared defaults.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, everything needed to call it correctly is present: what is ranked, over what window, what is returned, and the privacy/SFW constraints. Annotations cover the safety profile, so no additional behavioral burden remains.

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?

There is one optional parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains limit's range and default. The description adds nothing about limit itself; the 'with how many people added each' clause describes output, not the parameter. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (List) and resource (anime) plus the exact ranking criterion: most-added by members over the last week/month. That criterion cleanly separates it from search_anime (query-based), whats_airing (airing schedule), get_watch_order, and get_filler_guide without needing to open any schema.

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 popularity/trending context is unambiguous and the fallback to a monthly window 'when a week is quiet' tells the agent how the tool behaves in low-data periods. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent away from siblings (e.g., 'for title lookup use search_anime'), so no true exclusion guidance is given.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by describing returned fields and the safe-for-work filtering constraint.

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?

Two compact sentences with the main action front-loaded and no wasted wording. The return-content preview and safe-for-work constraint both earn their place.

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 simple read-only search tool, the description is nearly complete: it states the search resource, return fields and content restriction, while annotations cover safety and schema coverage is full. Pagination or ranking behavior is not described, but no output schema exists and the core contract is clear.

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 100%, so the schema already documents query, limit and format fully. The description reinforces that searching is by title and that results include multiple release formats, but it adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search the MyAnimeTracker anime catalog by title.' It also previews what matches look like, including catalog ID, format, year, episode count and page links. Sibling tools are clearly different activities, but the description does not explicitly differentiate itself from them.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by title' and 'Safe-for-work titles only,' which gives useful scope. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_watch_order or whats_airing, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation; the description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the Japan broadcast-date ordering, safe-for-work filtering, and that results are limited to episode numbers and dates. It does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or pagination, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with no filler. The constraints are stated compactly and are easy to scan.

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 simple, optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives enough scope, source, ordering, and result-content context to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around return shape details beyond episode numbers and dates, but nothing critical is missing.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single `days` parameter, including its default, min/max, and meaning. The description reinforces the 'next few days' window but does not add format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: lists anime episodes airing over a bounded upcoming window, ordered by Japan broadcast date and sourced from MyAnimeTracker. That scope is clearly distinct from search_anime, get_filler_guide, and get_watch_order without needing to name them.

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 implies the tool's use case through the upcoming-airings scope, but it does not explicitly say when to choose it over search_anime or the other siblings. The safe-for-work and episode-number/date constraints are output filters rather than usage guidance.

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