jikan

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 describes the tool as a read operation ('Get full details'), which is clear, but lacks information on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 in the first sentence and efficiently lists included details. It avoids unnecessary words, but could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating usage guidance from details. Overall, it's concise with minimal waste.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is adequate for basic use. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits and return values, which are important for a read operation. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.

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%, with the parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'MyAnimeList ID' and giving an example (Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood), but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the specific verb ('Get full details') and resource ('for a specific anime'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it requires a MyAnimeList ID rather than search terms or rankings. It explicitly lists the types of details included (score, synopsis, genres, etc.), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage context by stating it's for 'a specific anime by its MyAnimeList ID,' which suggests it should be used when the ID is known. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use alternatives like search_anime (for unknown IDs) or top_anime (for rankings), leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the data source ('MyAnimeList data') and return fields, but doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one listing return fields. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. The return field list could be slightly more structured, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter schema and no annotations or output schema, the description provides basic completeness by stating the purpose, data source, and return fields. However, it lacks important context about behavioral traits and usage guidelines that would be needed for optimal agent operation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'query' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search anime by title using MyAnimeList data.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('anime'), and data source ('MyAnimeList'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_anime' or 'search_characters', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_anime' (which might retrieve a specific anime by ID) or 'top_anime' (which might list popular anime), leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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 mentions the return fields (name, nicknames, favorites count, biography) but doesn't cover critical aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Search anime and manga characters by name') and immediately specifies the return data. There is no wasted text, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return fields but misses behavioral details like result limits or error cases. For a simple search tool, it meets the minimum viable threshold but lacks depth for robust agent use.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'query' well-documented in the schema as 'Character name to search for (e.g., "Naruto")'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as search syntax or limitations. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: searching anime and manga characters by name and returning specific fields (name, nicknames, favorites count, biography). It uses specific verbs ('search', 'returns') and identifies the resource ('anime and manga characters'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_anime' or 'get_anime', which likely search different entities.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_anime' or 'top_anime', nor does it specify contexts where character search is preferred over anime search. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves top-ranked anime, but it doesn't cover key behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or what 'top-ranked' means (e.g., based on ratings, popularity). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and optional filtering. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and includes necessary details without any redundant information, making it highly concise and effective.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It covers what the tool does and the parameter, but without annotations or output schema, it fails to address behavioral aspects like response format or constraints, making it only adequate for basic use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents the single optional parameter 'type' with its description and allowed values. The description adds minimal value by reiterating the filtering option but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as default behavior or implications of omitting the parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('top-ranked anime from MyAnimeList'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_anime' or 'search_anime', which might also retrieve anime data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 usage by mentioning optional filtering by type, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_anime' or 'get_anime'. There's no mention of specific contexts, exclusions, or comparative scenarios, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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