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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the result limit (up to 20 matches) and the exact return fields (id, titles, synopsis, counts, status, rating, cover). This goes beyond the annotations and helps agents understand what to expect from the 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?

The description is three clear, front-loaded sentences: the first states the primary purpose and limit, the second enumerates returned fields, and the third summarizes the core use. Every sentence provides meaningful detail without redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately concise for a search tool.

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 (2 params, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the tool's purpose, search scope, result limit, and return fields, giving the agent sufficient context to decide when and how to invoke it. No critical information is missing.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description partially compensates by indicating that the query is a title search for manga and that results are capped at 20. However, the 'limit' parameter is not explicitly explained, leaving ambiguity about whether it overrides this default. This adds some meaning but not complete compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 performs full-text search of Kitsu's manga catalogue by title, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_anime. It explicitly answers what the tool does: returns a Kitsu manga id and entry details. This is specific verb+resource and differentiates from alternative search tools.

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 clear context that this tool is for searching manga by title in the Kitsu database, and its purpose is to obtain the Kitsu manga id and details. It implies usage for manga-related lookups rather than anime, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. This is clear context without explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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