Get interest stacks containing an anime

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not responsible for the read-only safety profile. It adds non-obvious behavioral context beyond the annotations: the tool returns only stack metadata (not stack entries), depends on Tenrai being reachable, and has no official-API fallback. This is useful, although it does not discuss error behavior or rate limits.

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 packs a clear action, use case, input sourcing tip, output boundary, next-tool routing, and operational dependency into two sentences. Every clause earns its place, with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler.

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 100% parameter coverage, output schema presence, read-only annotations, and straightforward non-nested output, the description adds the missing non-schema context: how to obtain the anime id, what to do with the returned stack ids, and that the tool requires Tenrai directly. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, with rich per-parameter descriptions in the schema itself. The tool description identifies mal_id as the relevant input ('given anime (by mal_id)') but otherwise does not need to explain pagination, sorting, filters, or sfw flags because the schema already does. This is the appropriate baseline-3 case.

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 precise action: 'List the public MyAnimeList Interest Stacks that include a given anime (by mal_id)', naming the verb, resource, and key parameter. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying that it returns stack metadata only and redirects deeper retrieval to get_interest_stack, so an agent can tell it apart without opening the schema.

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 states the tool's use case ('what do people group this with', recommendation jumping-off point), tells the agent to obtain mal_id from search_anime, and instructs using get_interest_stack to retrieve stack entries. It also adds a hard operational constraint: no official-API fallback, so Tenrai must be reachable. This is clear when-to-use and how-to-chain guidance.

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