Get recommendations for a title

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: results are 'ranked by rating (highest first)', the mediaListEntry field 'requires login' to show list status, and excludeInList filters 'server-side' rather than client-side. This gives the agent a realistic expectation of behavior without repeating annotation information.

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, tightly packed with essential purpose, prerequisite, and behavioral details. It front-loads the core function, then adds actionable usage guidance. No fluff or redundancy—each sentence earns its place.

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 tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the main use case, the required setup step (search_media), auth-dependent behavior (login for mediaListEntry), and filtering options. The agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly without further clarification.

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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the workflow for mediaId ('Use search_media first') and the practical trade-off of excludeInList ('instead of checking each one yourself'), which goes beyond the schema's already solid parameter docs.

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's function: 'List anime/manga AniList users recommend as similar to a given title, ranked by rating (highest first).' This specifies the verb (list), resource (recommendations), and scope (similar to a title), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_recommendation (singular) by focusing on a list of recommendations.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (after resolving a title via search_media: 'Use search_media first to resolve the title to its AniList ID') and how to use a key parameter (excludeInList to filter server-side). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the workflow guidance is strong.

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