anime_title_recommendations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is read-only ('List'), returns paginated results with ratings and media entries, and is 'credential-free public AniList data', which communicates that no authentication is needed. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or default sorting, but these are minor omissions for a simple read 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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds key details (returns, rating, media entry, pagination, credential-free). Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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?

With 3 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior: it lists recommendations with ratings and media entries, is paginated, and uses public data. It omits some details like error responses or output format, but for a straightforward list tool, it is reasonably complete.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates that the 'id' is the anime ID. For high schema coverage, baseline is 3, and no extra value is provided.

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 lists anime recommendations, specifying the verb 'list' and the resource 'anime's recommendations'. It differentiates from sibling tools like anime_title, anime_title_characters, and anime_title_staff by focusing solely on recommendations, and includes details about returned data (rating, normalized media entry, pagination).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it compare it to other anime tools like anime_search or anime_title. The phrase 'Credential-free public AniList data' implies it's a public API, but this is not a clear usage guideline.

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