manga_title

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full transparency burden. It reveals data sources (credential-free AniList, scraped MAL), that mal adds one fetch, and that enrichment is skipped when no MAL ID. It could mention read-only nature, but overall good.

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 concise, starting with the main purpose, then listing fields, then explaining the optional parameter. No redundant sentences; every sentence adds value.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers the return structure (fields list) and optional behavior. It could mention that the id is required, but that's in the schema. Slightly incomplete on error handling, but sufficient.

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 has 100% coverage, baseline 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that mal enriches with MAL community score (including score and scored-by count) and that it's credential-free. This goes beyond the schema's brief description.

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 gets a manga by AniList ID and lists all returned fields (titles, scores, popularity, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like manga_search and manga_rankings by focusing on retrieval by ID.

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 when an AniList ID is available and explains the optional mal enrichment. However, it does not explicitly contrast with manga_search or provide when-not scenarios, which would elevate it to a 5.

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