Search characters

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

With annotations declaring readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description adds valuable behavioral context by noting that each result's bio (`description`) is omitted unless includeDescription is set. This discloses a data-omission behavior that the annotations do not cover, enhancing transparency beyond the structured data.

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 primary purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Each sentence earns its place, efficiently conveying purpose, relationship to get_character, and an important behavioral note.

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, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It sufficiently covers the purpose, return value usage, and a key behavioral nuance (bio omission) without needing to reiterate pagination or return format, which are already handled by schema and output 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 schema covers 100% of the parameters with detailed descriptions, especially for page and includeDescription. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it merely repeats the includeDescription effect, so the baseline score of 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 tool searches AniList for characters by name, uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('characters'), and explicitly distinguishes the tool from get_character by saying it returns IDs to use with get_character. This is precise and differentiates it from sibling tools like get_media_characters.

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 a clear usage context by indicating the tool returns AniList IDs for use with get_character, implying a search-then-detail workflow. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use get_media_characters instead), leaving a slight gap but still giving adequate guidance for an agent.

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