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.