Search forum threads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation with potentially open-ended results. The description adds that it returns thread IDs with title/category context, but it does not disclose any error behaviors or edge cases (e.g., deep pagination failures) – though those are covered in the parameter schema. Since annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers pagination constraints, the description adds modest value but not rich behavioral detail.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the return value and downstream tools. There is zero fluff, and every clause serves a purpose. It is exemplary in conciseness and structure.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return format is covered elsewhere. The description provides the essential context: what it searches, what it returns, and how to use the results. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when to call it, though it could optionally mention that it is the only thread search tool. Given the rich schema and annotations, a 4 is fitting.

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%, and each parameter has a detailed description covering behavior (e.g., term matches title/body, categoryId silent filtering, page limit). The description itself does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it merely summarizes the search scope. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb 'Search/browse' with a clear resource 'AniList's forum threads', and specifies that it returns thread IDs with context. It is distinct from sibling search tools like search_media or search_character because it explicitly targets forum threads and lists downstream tools for using the results. The purpose is unambiguous and easily actionable.

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 states the results are intended for use with get_thread, get_thread_comments, post_thread, or post_thread_comment, giving clear downstream context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other search tools (e.g., search_media) or state when not to use this tool. Still, the primary use case is clear from the wording, 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.