manga_title_recommendations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that results are most-recommended first, include community rating and full title record, and notes the cross-media caveat and 404 behavior for anime ids. It also states the data is credential-free public AniList data. It could be more explicit about pagination behavior or other error cases, but covers the key behavioral traits.

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 four sentences with no redundancy. It leads with the core purpose, then adds sorting and content details, followed by critical caveats and routing guidance. Every sentence adds value and the structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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 covers the return content (community rating, full title record), sorting order, cross-media types, the 404 error for anime ids, and the alternative endpoint. Since there is no output schema, this adequately informs an agent of what to expect. Minor gaps like rate limits or other error conditions are not critical for a public read-only tool, so it is nearly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does mention reading each entry's own type, but that concerns output, not input parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('titles recommended alongside a manga'), and the source (AniList users). It also distinguishes from the anime sibling by noting cross-media types and explicitly naming the alternative endpoint for anime ids. The name itself is unambiguous, and the description reinforces the scope.

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?

Explicitly states when not to use this tool: 'An anime id here returns 404' and directs to GET /anime/title/{id}/recommendations. It also warns that recommendations may cross media types, advising to read each entry's own type, which prevents misuse. Clear exclusions and alternatives are provided.

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