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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, establishing safety. The description adds valuable context about the data provider (Jikan/MyAnimeList) and the scope (28K+ titles), as well as result highlights (scores, episodes, studios, seasons). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

A single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's core function, scope, and data source. No filler, front-loaded with the main action. Every word earns its place.

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 rich input schema with parameter descriptions and an existing output schema, the description provides a high-level overview that covers all key aspects of the tool. Pagination and sorting are handled by the schema. The description is complete for its purpose.

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 100% with descriptions for all 9 parameters. The description restates some parameter categories (name, genre, type, etc.) but does not add new information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 titles by multiple criteria (name, genre, type, status, rating) and indicates the data source (MyAnimeList via Jikan). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools focused on specific functions like top rankings or details.

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 use for general search but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like anime.titles.top or anime.titles.details. No exclusions or contrast with siblings are provided, relying on user inference.

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