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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and non-destructive. The description adds that this is a full-text search returning up to 20 matches and enumerates the returned fields (id, titles, synopsis, etc.), which gives useful behavioral context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core action, and uses the second sentence to enumerate return values. No extraneous content.

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 2-parameter schema and existing annotations, the description is complete: it states the search limitation (by title), the maximum result count, and lists the return fields. It doesn't need to explain return values since an output schema exists, but the inclusion of that list makes the tool self-contained.

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 provides ranges/defaults for limit (1-20, default 10), and the description adds that the query is a title search via 'by title.' However, it doesn't elaborate on limit semantics beyond 'up to 20 matches,' and with 50% schema coverage, the description provides moderate added value.

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+scope: 'full-text search of Kitsu's anime catalogue by title' and clarifies the tool's purpose as 'Answers what the Kitsu entry for an anime is and what its id is.' This clearly differentiates from sibling search_manga and top_anime, which focus on different resources.

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 when an anime title needs to be searched in the Kitsu catalogue, and notes the result includes the id. However, it does not explicitly exclude other search types (e.g., searching by staff or genre) or compare with alternatives like search_manga, so guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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