Get one interest stack

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

Annotations already indicate this is read-only, and the description adds valuable behavioral nuance: sfw and sfw_strict filter entries rather than hiding the stack itself, entry order is curator-defined, and the tool has no official-API fallback. This goes well beyond what the annotations alone communicate.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the primary action stated first and supporting usage details following efficiently. Every sentence adds meaningful context, from entry ordering to chaining behavior to the absence of an API fallback.

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 description is complete for a read-only retrieval tool with a rich output schema. It tells the agent how to identify the stack, how to interpret recorded entry data, how sfw filtering behaves, and what dependency exists on Tenrai. Nothing essential 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful semantic detail: the id is sourced from sibling stack-list tools, and sfw/sfw_strict operate on the entry list rather than hiding the stack. This reinforces and clarifies what the schema definitions already provide.

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 states exactly what the tool does: fetch one MyAnimeList Interest Stack by mal_id, including entries in the curator's order with author_score and note. It also clearly distinguishes this from the sibling list-fetching tools by explaining how mal_id is obtained from them.

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 concrete guidance on how to obtain the mal_id from related interest-stack list tools and how each entry's mal_id can be chained into get_anime or get_manga. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use this tool, but the usage context is clear and practical.

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