manga_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states credential-free, public data, and lists return fields. It implies read-only behavior via 'search' and description of returned data, but doesn't explicitly disclose pagination or rate limits.

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 sentences, mostly informative. The first sentence ('Search manga.') is redundant with the name, but the rest efficiently conveys purpose, data source, and return fields.

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?

The description lists return fields and data source, which is good for a search tool with no output schema. However, it does not explain pagination (page, per_page), error cases, or result ordering (beyond schema). Schema descriptions fill some gaps, but the description could be more 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description only elaborates on the 'query' parameter (free-text). It adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, thus baseline score of 3.

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 searches manga by free-text query, specifies the data source (AniList), and lists return fields. It distinguishes from siblings like anime_search (anime) and manga_rankings (different operation).

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 indicates use case: searching manga by query. It mentions 'credential-free public data' which sets expectations. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to sibling tools like manga_title or manga_rankings.

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