Get anime details

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

Even though annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond those flags: the moreinfo field being usually absent, the trailer being only the single main URL, the sfw/sfw_strict filters applying only to the relations list and not the anime itself, and the transparent fallback to the official MAL API with a precise list of omitted fields. This level of detail exceeds what the annotations convey.

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 longer than average, but every sentence earns its place: one sentence defines the core return payload, then each subsequent sentence addresses a genuine edge case (moreinfo optionality, trailer limitation, id sourcing, sfw semantics, fallback degradation). The most important information is front-loaded, and the technical fallback detail is logically placed at the end.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to document return shapes, and it does not waste space doing so. It instead covers the operational aspects an agent needs: the fallback behavior when Tenrai is unavailable, which fields are lost in that fallback, the id acquisition path, and the subtle scoping of the sfw flags. Nothing an agent would need to correctly invoke this tool 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?

The schema already covers all three parameters 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning by clarifying that sfw/sfw_strict do not filter the requested anime itself but only its relations list, and by flagging the fallback API behavior for parameters like sfw. The id parameter is contextualized by the 'from search_anime' guidance, adding temporal semantics beyond the schema's numeric type.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Get full details for one anime by mal_id' — and enumerates the concrete fields returned (synopsis, score, genres, studios, streaming links, external links, synonyms, related entries). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by telling the agent to use get_anime_videos for video content, and the 'get full details for one anime' framing sets it apart from search_anime, get_top_anime, and get_anime_schedule.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: 'Obtain the mal_id from search_anime first' tells the agent the prerequisite workflow, and 'use get_anime_videos for every promo/episode-preview/music video' names the alternative and the exact condition for choosing it. It also explains when the sfw parameters apply versus when they don't, leaving no ambiguity about when this tool is the right choice.

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