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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the result is paginated, and passing an anime ID yields a 404. It does not mention rate limits or auth needs, but the added error/pagination context earns credit above baseline.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose and content scope front-loaded before the sibling-routing guidance. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. With annotations covering safety and the description covering scope, pagination, error behavior, and sibling alternatives, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying the `id` is a manga id, which is important because the schema's own param text says 'anime id' — a discrepancy the description usefully resolves. Page/per_page behavior is only implied via 'paginated'.

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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch paginated staff-credit records') and resource ('for an AniList manga id'), and enumerates the credit types returned (author, artist, assistants, translators, volume ranges). It explicitly distinguishes itself from manga_title_characters and anime_title_staff.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not condition ('Anime IDs return 404') and names two alternative siblings with the condition that selects each ('use manga_title_characters for characters or anime_title_staff for anime credits'). Routing is unambiguous.

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