AnimeHunt anime & manga catalog

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description usefully adds the sign-in/auth requirement and clarifies that 'watching/reading' maps to the 'current' shelf, plus that progress is optional. It still doesn't state what happens when the title already exists (whether it overwrites progress or shelf) or what is returned, which are meaningful gaps for an idempotency-sensitive mutation.

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 dense sentence with the mutation front-loaded ahead of the status mapping and the auth prerequisite. The parenthetical enum list is long but each element is load-bearing; only the semicolon splice makes it slightly harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 4-parameter mutation with no output schema and thin annotations, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: the action, the shelf vocabulary, optionality of progress, and the auth gate. It could reasonably add what to do when the title name is ambiguous or missing (the schema hints at slugs from search results, implying resolve_title) but the core is complete.

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 75% and the schema already documents title, progress and media_type. The description adds real semantic value the schema does not: the human-facing shelf vocabulary ('watching/reading') mapped onto the 'current' enum value, and confirmation that progress is optional. It adds nothing for media_type, but the status mapping alone exceeds the baseline.

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+resource ('Add a title to the signed-in person's AnimeHunt library') and additionally covers the move-between-shelves case, which is a distinct operation an agent would otherwise miss. It is clear and unambiguous, but never names or contrasts against sibling tools like my_library (read side) or rate_title, so it stops short of full 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it makes clear this is the write path for library membership and shelf changes, and that sign-in is a prerequisite. However, it gives no when-not-to-use guidance and never points to alternatives (e.g. my_library to read the library, rate_title to score a title), leaving routing decisions to inference.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only describes the returned content and does not mention read-only status, authentication, pagination, or rate limits. Additional context would help the agent understand how to call it safely and effectively.

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, front-loaded sentence that adds the key detail (next 7 days) beyond the title. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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, parameterless list tool, the description is minimally adequate. It states what is returned but omits whether the results are global or user-specific, and does not mention any output structure or pagination. Given no output schema, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to compensate for any parameter documentation. No schema parameters exist to explain.

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 resource and time scope: anime episodes airing in the next 7 days. It is clearer than the title alone by specifying the exact window. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like season_titles or search_titles, so the agent must infer when this tool is preferred.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as season_titles or search_titles. The context is implied only by the description. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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 and openWorldHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds genuine context beyond the annotations: the call is free, the series stays hosted at its original publisher (i.e. this is a directory claim, not a hosting migration), and the response contains requirements, steps and links. No rate-limit or auth detail, but that is minor for a read-only guide.

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 sentences, with the audience framing correctly front-loaded. However, the long parenthetical cataloguing Tapas/AniList/MyAnimeList and every media type reads as keyword padding and dilutes the core message, which costs it a point on structure.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so ('requirements, steps and links to list or claim a series'). Zero required parameters and a read-only guide need little more; only the enum/media-type mismatch is a small completeness gap.

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% and the single enum parameter is fully documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description mentions media types beyond the enum (webtoon, light novel, webcomic, anime) while the parameter only accepts 'anime' or 'manga', which could mildly mislead an agent about valid values, but it adds no syntax or format detail of its own.

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: 'Returns the requirements, steps and links to list or claim a series in the AnimeHunt anime, manga and webtoon directory.' The creator-facing audience framing clearly separates it from all the catalog/library siblings (search_titles, my_library, etc.), so an agent can distinguish it without opening 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 opening clause names the situation that selects this tool ('For creators asking where to publish, post or promote their indie... work') and even gives trigger conditions (after Tapas shut down, when AniList/MyAnimeList refuse self-published work). It lacks an explicit 'do not use this for X' or an alternative tool, but there is no sibling guide tool to route to, so context is effectively complete.

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 a safe read-only, closed-world browse, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine scope context beyond the annotations: it notes webtoon coverage (Korean manhwa, Chinese manhua, WEBTOON/Tapas originals) and that platform accepts both streaming and reading services.

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 core capability, followed by the list_genres pointer and then examples. The example list is somewhat long and repeats coverage already implied ('best action manhwa' after webtoon coverage), but nothing is confusing or buried.

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 10-parameter browse tool with no output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers most of what an agent needs to invoke it. The remaining hole is the undocumented interaction between media_type and format plus the 25-result cap, which could cause incorrect calls but is a narrow gap.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially: it explains genres require slugs from list_genres, that platform covers both streaming and reading services, and what webtoon_only means. However it never explains media_type (anime vs manga), its relationship to format, or the limit/pagination cap of 25, leaving several parameters ambiguous.

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 ('Browse the catalog') and enumerates the exact filter axes (genre, year, status, format, service, sort order), making scope unambiguous. It also names the sibling helper list_genres for genre slugs, so the agent can route without opening a 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?

Concrete example intents ('best romance anime', 'what anime is on Netflix', 'romance webtoons on WEBTOON') clearly signal when to reach for this tool, and it points to list_genres for slug lookup. It stops short of an explicit contrast such as 'use search_titles when you have a keyword', so the boundary with the sibling search tool is left to inference.

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 and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by listing the return payload (synopsis, links, related entries), but says nothing about the media_type requirement, rate limits, or behavior when slug vs title is ambiguous.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and the payload. The long comma list of return fields is slightly padded but every element is informative.

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 detail tool with no output schema this is adequate but thin: it doesn't explain the media_type parameter's effect or behavior on lookup failure, leaving an agent to infer how to disambiguate anime vs manga.

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 50%; the slug/title dual-input meaning is echoed from the schema, and the optional media_type enum parameter is never mentioned in the description. Baseline 3 since the schema handles what little there is.

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 ('Full details') and resource ('one anime, manga or webtoon') and enumerates exactly what is returned. It is clearly distinct from siblings like search_titles or resolve_title.

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 use after search by noting the slug 'from search results', but it never explicitly contrasts with siblings like resolve_title or search_titles, nor states when not to use it. Implied usage only.

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 readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only, closed-world profile is covered. The description adds the key behavioral fact that the output is a set of genre slugs consumable by discover_titles, but says nothing about ordering, format, or completeness of the list.

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 eight-word sentence that front-loads the essential fact with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe the return value, and it does: a collection of genre slugs. That is the critical missing piece for a zero-parameter enumeration tool, though it could note whether the list is stable or exhaustive.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline is 4. There are no argument semantics the description could usefully add.

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 names a concrete resource (the genre slugs) and ties it to the sibling tool that consumes them (discover_titles). The verb 'list' is only implied by the name, but an agent can immediately tell this is an enumeration tool distinct from discover_titles itself.

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?

Calling out that these are the slugs 'accepted by discover_titles' strongly implies the use case: fetch these before filtering with discover_titles. However, it never states the when/when-not conditions or a prerequisite chain explicitly, so usage must be inferred.

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 and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the tool requires authentication and points the agent at the error text returned when not signed in. It still omits return/pagination behavior, but the auth disclosure is meaningful added value.

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 tight sentences with the resource scoping front-loaded and no filler. The auth note is a slight detour but still earns its place by telling the agent what a failure looks like.

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 list tool with three optional parameters, the description covers what is returned and the sign-in requirement, but leaves limit/pagination and the media_type filter unexplained despite low schema coverage. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 only 33% (status is documented; limit and media_type are not). The description's phrasing ('watching or reading', 'plan to', 'finished') loosely maps to the media_type and status enums but gives no detail on limit or how results are bounded/paginated, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 resource (the signed-in person's AnimeHunt library) and enumerates its contents — watching/reading, planning, finished, with scores and progress — which effectively conveys a read of the user's own collection. It is distinguishable from siblings like add_to_library or search_titles, though it never names an explicit verb and relies on the reader to infer 'retrieve/list'.

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 prerequisite (must be signed in) is stated clearly, which is genuinely useful routing information, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as discover_titles, search_titles, or recommend_from_liked. Usage is only implied by the description of the library contents.

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?

Goes beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation by disclosing the upsert side effect ('creates the entry as "completed" when it is not there yet') and the auth requirement ('Needs sign-in'). It stops short of saying whether an existing rating is overwritten, but this is a genuinely informative disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 tight clauses, front-loaded with the action and scale, then the side effect and auth note. No padding or redundancy.

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 three-parameter rating tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, scale, auth requirement, and the notable completion-creating side effect. The only real gap is behavior when a rating already exists.

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 all three parameters are already documented, including the enum for media_type and the numeric bounds. The description's '1 to 10 (decimals allowed)' largely restates 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 (rate a title) plus the exact scale (1-10, decimals allowed) and the target scope (the signed-in person's library). This clearly separates it from siblings like write_review and add_to_library without opening 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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the mention of 'Needs sign-in' serves as a precondition, but it never states when to prefer this over add_to_library or write_review, nor any exclusions. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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 and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: the 1-10 input bound, that recommendations are computed across the entire set rather than per-title, and that each result carries a 'because you liked X' explanation. It adds no count defaults or how-exclude-interacts detail, keeping it at a 4.

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 sentences, fully front-loaded: the capability first, the routing cue second. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does reasonably well by promising recommendations plus a stated reason. What's left out is minor: behavior of 'limit' and 'exclude', and whether seeds can mix media types, though the media_type default note in the schema partially covers the latter.

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 75% and the bounds of 'liked' (1-10) mirror the description's own '1-10', so little is added there; 'limit' is undocumented in the schema but self-explanatory from min/max/default. The description explains the semantics of the set ('fit the whole set') but never covers 'exclude' or 'media_type'. Also, it advertises 'webtoons' while media_type's enum offers only anime/manga, a mild inconsistency rather than a schema-annotation conflict.

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?

Specific verb+resource (recommendations derived from a set of liked titles) plus scope details: 1-10 seeds, whole-set fit, and per-item reason strings. The closing line 'Best tool for "I liked A and B, what should I watch next?"' lets an agent distinguish it from single-seed siblings like similar_titles or discover_titles without opening a 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 'Best tool for...' sentence gives an explicit trigger scenario, which is clear usage context. It stops short of naming the alternative tools (e.g., similar_titles for a single seed) or stating when not to use it, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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 and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it discloses fuzzy matching semantics, result ordering ('best first'), and the side output of a detected episode/chapter number. It omits any note on confidence, empty-result behavior, or auth/rate 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?

Two tightly written sentences that lead with the operation, follow with a concrete messy-string example, and close with the audience. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries return-shape duty and does so adequately: ranked catalog titles plus a detected episode/chapter number. It would be stronger with a note on whether catalog IDs are returned and how ties/uncertain matches are handled.

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 only 33%: text has a description, but limit and media_type have none. The description clarifies text (messy strings, episode markers) via its example, but leaves the result-count cap and the anime/manga filter completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('resolve a page title to catalog entries') with a concrete example input, so an agent understands this is fuzzy/string normalization rather than a plain lookup. It does not name the siblings it differs from (search_titles, get_title, discover_titles), leaving the distinction to inference.

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?

'Built for browser extensions and agents reading the current page' gives a clear usage context for when to reach for this over a keyword search. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it (e.g., exact known titles).

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 cover read-only and closed-world safety, so the description's added value is the fuzzy/multi-language matching tolerance and the returned fields (year, format, score, page URL). That is genuine behavioral context beyond the safety hints, though it omits pagination or truncation behavior for a limited result set.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and matching mode, then the return shape. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates return fields and matching behavior, and it mentions the three media types. The gaps are the undocumented limit behavior and the lack of routing guidance against sibling search/discovery tools.

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?

At 67% schema coverage, query and media_type are already documented in the schema. The description adds real meaning for query (any language, partial or misspelled accepted) but says nothing about limit, its default of 10, or the cap of 25.

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 ('Find anime, manga or webtoons by title') and the matching mode. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like resolve_title or discover_titles, so an agent can't tell from the text which of those to pick.

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 notes fuzzy matching is fine, which is input guidance, but gives no when-to-use condition and no explicit alternative. With resolve_title and discover_titles in the sibling set, the agent is left to infer which tool handles lookup versus discovery.

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?

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses ordering ('most popular first') and future scope ('Includes upcoming seasons'), both genuine behavioral traits an agent cannot infer from the schema. It omits pagination/default-limit behavior, so it is not fully transparent.

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 compact sentence front-loads the resource and the sort/scope qualifiers with no filler. The parenthetical season enumeration is slightly redundant against the schema enum, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations describing returns, the description should carry the full behavioral load; it covers ordering and future seasons but leaves pagination limits and result shape unexplained. It is adequate but leaves a clear gap for a list tool with a capped 'limit'.

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%, so the description carries the burden, but it only restates the season enum values already in the schema and says nothing about 'limit' (default 20, max 50) or the year range (1960-2100). The one genuinely ambiguous parameter, limit, is entirely unaddressed.

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 resource (anime of one season of a year) with the verb implied by the read-only listing, and names the season vocabulary. It is distinguishable from siblings like search_titles or discover_titles, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with 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 season+year framing implies the browsing context in which this tool applies, and 'Includes upcoming seasons' hints at a use case (future schedules). However, no alternative tool is named and no when-not-to-use condition 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 and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the two recommendation sources (shared genres/tags and community pairs), but it does not describe return format, pagination, or limits beyond what annotations provide.

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, front-loaded passage with no redundant fluff. The nested quotes make it slightly awkward to parse, but every clause contributes to understanding the tool's scope.

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 tool with three parameters and no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: limit semantics, media_type enum restrictions, and return value expectations are unaddressed. The media type mismatch ('webtoon' not in enum) further reduces completeness for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It mentions that 'accepts a slug or a title' clarifies the title input and names media types, but it omits any explanation of the limit parameter (default 8, max 12) and introduces 'webtoon' even though the media_type enum only allows 'anime' and 'manga', which could mislead an agent.

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 that the tool returns recommendations for one title via two mechanisms ('similar by themes' and 'people who liked it also liked') and accepts either a slug or a title. It distinguishes itself from siblings like recommend_from_liked by focusing on a single input title, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. This is a clear purpose but lacks sibling differentiation by name.

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 'Recommendations for one anime, manga or webtoon' but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools such as discover_titles or recommend_from_liked. The context is adequate but not fully directive.

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 declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, flagging a local write. The description adds that the submission is made on the user's behalf and that a reply requires contact info, which is useful context beyond the annotations. It does not say whether the request is idempotent, rate-limited, or what confirmation the submitter receives.

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: action, trigger condition, input expectation. Front-loaded with the purpose and no filler or repetition.

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 3-parameter submission tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to invoke it, and the expected input shape. Only the post-submission behavior (confirmation, error handling) is unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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 title, contact, and details. The description reinforces the expected shape ('One sentence title plus optional details') but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already carries.

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 ('Sends a feature suggestion or piece of feedback to the AnimeHunt team') plus the acting scope ('on the person's behalf'). This is clearly distinguishable from every sibling, all of which are read/library/review operations on titles.

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 explicit triggering conditions: 'Use when someone wishes the site did something it does not, or wants to report a problem.' No alternatives or exclusions are named, but no close sibling exists that would compete with this tool, so the omission is minor.

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 only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description carries the real disclosure burden and does so well: needs sign-in (auth requirement), re-posting replaces the existing review (upsert/overwrite semantics), and the output carries a 'via an assistant' label. These are exactly the traits an agent cannot infer from the schema or annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, each delivering distinct information: identity/scope, content-provenance rule, labeling and idempotency, and auth. Front-loaded with the action, and no sentence is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 write tool with no output schema and only partial annotations, the description covers the critical unknowns: auth, overwrite behavior, labeling, and content policy. It omits error/failure behavior and the 50-character minimum on review text, which is a minor residual gap rather than a blocker.

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 75%, so most parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the 'review' parameter by requiring it to be the person's own words, but adds nothing about media_type (ambiguous-name narrowing) or contains_spoilers, which are only covered in the schema. Baseline-adequate, not additive.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource (post a review of a title) and scopes it to the signed-in person's own review. That is clearly separable from sibling rate_title (rating, not text) and add_to_library (saving, not publishing). No ambiguity about what gets created.

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 explicit behavioral rules for use: the review must be the person's own words, the agent must ask for it rather than write it, and one review per title with re-posting replacing the prior one. It stops short of naming an alternative tool (e.g. rate_title) or when-not-to-post, so it is strong but not fully comparative.

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