Browse interest stacks

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the bar for added transparency is lower. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond those: it returns stack metadata only, requires passing the mal_id to get_interest_stack for entries, and has no official-API fallback, relying on the availability of Tenrai. This does not contradict the annotations.

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 dense but entirely purposeful: each sentence earns its place—defining the resource, giving usage context with sibling contrast, marking the return boundary, pointing to the right parent tool, and warning about availability. There is 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 tool has 11 optional parameters but a 100% schema-documented parameter set and an output schema, the description does not need to explain filters—it only needs to supply routing and boundary context. It fully covers when to use it, what to do with the result, how it differs from several siblings, and a critical runtime dependency. 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 description coverage is 100% and every parameter already has rich, unambiguous explanations. The description does not repeat parameter details nor add new semantic guidance for parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The contextual framing of what an Interest Stack is does add background value, but not parameter-specific meaning.

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+resource: 'Browse or search MyAnimeList Interest Stacks', then clearly defines what interest stacks are. It also distinguishes itself from get_top_anime and the specific-title variants, so an agent can tell them apart without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('taste- or mood-shaped requests... where a ranking or a genre filter is the wrong instrument'), names the sibling alternative for 'best' vs 'goes together', and routes to get_interest_stack for entries and get_anime_interest_stacks/get_manga_interest_stacks for title-specific lookups. It also warns about the lack of fallback, giving clear boundary conditions.

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