Search characters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's burden is lighter. It adds that results are AniList IDs intended for get_character, but does not disclose pagination limits or error behavior; those are documented in the schema's parameter descriptions. Overall it provides modest contextual value beyond the 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?

A single, focused sentence states the action and the output's purpose with no filler. The description is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, making it efficiently scannable.

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?

With a rich schema (detailed page/perPage descriptions), annotations for safety, and the presence of an output schema, the description need only tie the tool to downstream use. It does that by naming get_character, making the overall package adequate; however, it doesn't explicitly call out pagination or search limitations, which are already covered in the schema.

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 provides full documentation for all three parameters (term, page, perPage) with coverage at 100%, including default values and edge-case error behavior for deep pagination. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, so it lands at the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states the tool searches for characters by name on AniList, naming the specific resource (characters) and the verb (search). It differentiates from sibling search tools (e.g., search_staff) by specifying 'characters' and notes the output purpose (IDs for get_character).

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?

Implies the use case—finding character IDs to pass to get_character—through the final sentence. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like search_staff or when not to use this tool, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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