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.