Search studios

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already present, the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns AniList IDs for later use with get_studio, and it is a fuzzy search. It does not contradict the annotations, though it does not go into pagination details (those live in the schema).

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 filler. Every clause earns its place, including the sibling differentiation and return-value 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 full schema coverage, the presence of an output schema, and annotations for safety, the description covers all needed context: what the tool does, when to use it versus an alternative, and what it returns. No significant gaps remain.

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%, with term, page, and perPage all fully described. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond implying that 'by name' refers to the term parameter, so the baseline 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 states 'Search/browse AniList's animation/production studios by name', clearly identifying the action and resource. It also distinguishes from the sibling get_studio by noting that this tool returns multiple candidates rather than a single closest match, which is strong differentiation.

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 explicitly says to use this tool 'when you want to see multiple candidates rather than take the closest match' and points out that get_studio's own name param already does the same fuzzy search and resolves partial names. This gives clear when-to-use and an explicit alternative.

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