Get anime reviews

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and openWorld. The description adds behavioral traits: review text truncated to 1200 characters, episodes_watched field is present (not chapters_read), and community reaction counts are returned. It also explains that limit only caps the current page, not fetching additional pages.

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?

Three well-structured sentences, each adding essential information without redundancy. Front-loaded with core purpose, then key behavioral details, ending with source of mal_id. No wasted words.

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 output schema exists, the description covers return fields (text, score, flags, reactions), pagination behavior, filtering parameters, and id source. It is complete for a review listing tool with rich annotations.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions, but the description adds meaning: clarifies episodes_watched vs chapters_read, explains default sort (most_helpful), and details limit/page interaction beyond schema constraints.

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 the tool retrieves user reviews for one anime by mal_id, with specific fields. It distinguishes from siblings like get_manga_reviews and get_recent_anime_recommendations by mentioning anime-specific and review-specific details.

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 detailed usage guidance: how to obtain mal_id (search_anime), explains limit vs page interaction, and clarifies that sort/preliminary/spoilers/sentiment filter before the cap. It lacks explicit when-not to use but gives sufficient context.

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