Get anime/manga details

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

The description discloses rich behavioral details beyond annotations: ranking window semantics, nextAiringEpisode availability only for currently-releasing anime, mediaListEntry returning null if not on the user's list, batch behavior with null placeholders in order-preserved arrays, and the unbounded streamingEpisodes field. Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) are consistent with the description; no contradiction.

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 detailed but front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence serves a purpose (returned fields, special cases, usage guidance, return format). It is somewhat dense, but given the tool's complexity and the need to cover rankings, login requirements, and batch behavior, the length is justified. A slight deduction for the long list of fields and asides.

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 all essential context: what the tool does, when to use it (and when not to, via search_media guidance), authentication requirements, batching semantics, and return type variance. The output schema exists and covers return fields, so the description need not enumerate them. It is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke 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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: the 25-ID cap is tied to codebase conventions, uncapped batches could be huge, and includeStreamingEpisodes is off by default because AniList doesn't paginate it. It also explains the return shape conditional on `ids` being a scalar vs. array. These insights go beyond the schema descriptions, warranting a 4.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: "Get detailed information about one or more anime or manga by their AniList ID(s)". It enumerates the returned fields (title, format, status, counts, genres, score, synopsis, dates, rankings) and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_media by stating that search_media should be used first to resolve titles to IDs. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 gives explicit guidance: "Use search_media first to resolve a title to its AniList ID." It also clarifies when login is required (for mediaListEntry) and when includeStreamingEpisodes should be enabled (warning that it can return hundreds of entries). This sets clear usage boundaries relative to sibling tools like search_media and get_media_tags.

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