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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds almost nothing beyond that — it does not disclose pagination behavior, whether results are curated/community-sourced in a meaningful way, or ordering. The phrase 'community recommendations' largely restates the resource name rather than revealing a behavioral trait.

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 short sentence with the resource and input key front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to be maximally useful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a recommendations endpoint reachable only via numeric id, the description omits how to obtain that id and how it differs from sibling anime_title tools, leaving an agent to guess at the right entry point.

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% (id, page, per_page all documented with format, defaults, and clamping), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only reinforces that the id is an AniList id and adds no format, range, or usage nuance the schema lacks.

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 names the resource ('Anime community recommendations') and the keying input ('by AniList id'), so an agent can infer it returns recommendation entries for a given title. However, it never distinguishes itself from adjacent siblings such as anime_title, anime_search, or manga_title_recommendations, leaving the specific capability ambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus anime_title or anime_title_characters, and no prerequisites (e.g. that a valid AniList numeric id must first be obtained from anime_search). Usage must be entirely inferred from the name.

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