Get a recommendation by ID

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those: it warns of a known AniList-side inconsistency where a majority of IDs from get_recommendations_for_media may 404 here, independent of the client. It also clarifies that a 404 does not mean the pairing doesn't exist, which is important runtime behavior.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose and usage guidance. However, the caveat about 404 inconsistencies is lengthy, including specific test statistics (7 of 10 tested). That detail is useful but could be more succinct. Overall well-structured, slightly verbose.

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 simple single-ID lookup with an output schema present and one integer parameter, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, alternative tools, and failure behavior. Annotations already flag read-only, so no further safety notes are needed.

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 the only parameter 'id' described as 'AniList recommendation ID' in the schema. The description also mentions the ID's role ('by its AniList recommendation ID'), adding minimal extra meaning but enough to reinforce the semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('Get a single AniList recommendation pairing') and the resource (by AniList recommendation ID). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_recommendations_for_media, noting this is for a single lookup rather than browsing the list.

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 describes when to use this tool: for re-checking a specific pairing's current rating/userRating after voting, without re-paginating the whole list. It also directs users to get_recommendations_for_media when they need to discover recommendation IDs or browse/list them, providing a clear alternative.

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