Get an anime/manga's reviews

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description goes beyond them by disclosing the live ordering behavior ('ordered by rating, not score'), the fact that summary is always included, and that includeBody can return long full-text bodies. This adds meaningful operational context that the annotations do not provide.

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, front-loaded with the core action and ordering detail, followed by practical usage tips. Every sentence serves a purpose and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the rich input schema (100% coverage), readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description still adds essential context: how to resolve IDs, what the response always includes, and when to avoid fetching bodies. This makes the tool fully actionable for an agent.

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%, and each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds some nuance (e.g., 'short excerpt' for summary and 'can be long' for body), but it mostly reinforces what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb+resource construction: 'List user-written reviews for an anime or manga.' It also clarifies the ordering and includes a prerequisite (search_media), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_media_characters or get_recommendations_for_media.

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 clear usage context: it tells the agent to use search_media first to resolve a title to an AniList ID, and advises leaving includeBody off unless full text is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the prerequisite and body-length warning provide solid guidance.

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