Search activity feed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses that each result contains full content (text, counts, user, media), eliminating the need for a follow-up call. It also hints at the ability to later re-check likes after liking, which is beyond what annotations state. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each clause earns its place. It packs important usage guidance without unnecessary exposition, making it highly scannable 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, all rich in schema descriptions, plus an output schema), the description covers the essential context: what it does, what results include, and when to avoid follow-up calls. It does not need to repeat schema details, and the sibling-tool hints (get_activity, get_user_activity) are addressed. The description is complete for effective use.

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 fully documents all four parameters, including nuanced behavior (e.g., user validation asymmetry, pagination limits). The description only summarizes the parameters at a high level ('optionally filtered to one user and/or one activity type'), which adds minimal value beyond the schema but meets the baseline.

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 verb (search/browse) and resource (AniList's activity feed), and explicitly scopes what it covers: list updates, text posts, messages. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning optional filtering by user and activity type, which get_activity and get_user_activity do not both offer.

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 and schema give explicit guidance: it says no follow-up get_activity call is needed, and the user parameter suggests using get_user_activity when only a single user's feed is required without type filtering. It also points to search_user for numeric ID validation, providing clear alternatives.

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