Search forum threads

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

With annotations declaring readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, the description doesn't contradict them and adds useful behavior beyond annotations: it mentions the return format (thread IDs with title/category) and the ability to browse by category without a term. This goes beyond the safety profile supplied by annotations, although it doesn't discuss pagination or error behavior.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second states the output and downstream usage. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy, filler, or ambiguity. Perfectly front-loaded.

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 presence of a detailed output schema and annotations, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, and how the results are meant to be consumed. It covers browsing and filtering, and the schema handles pagination and parameter specifics. No critical context is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no param-level details beyond the schema; it only summarizes 'title/body text' (term) and 'restrict to one category' (categoryId). This is a light paraphrase, not additional semantic value, but it doesn't harm.

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 a specific verb ('Search/browse') and resource ('AniList's forum threads'), with explicit scope ('by title/body text and/or restrict to one category'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the exact thread-related tools it feeds, clarifying that it is the search entry point.

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 workflow context: 'Returns AniList thread IDs ... to use with get_thread, get_thread_comments, post_thread, or post_thread_comment.' This implies when to use it (to find threads) versus when to use other tools, though it doesn't explicitly state exclusions like 'if you already have a thread ID, use get_thread directly.' Still, the context is strong.

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