Get interest stacks containing a manga

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description rightly focuses on what they can't express: it returns stack metadata only (not entries) and has no official-API fallback, meaning it hard-fails if Tenrai is unreachable. That dependency/failure-mode disclosure is valuable; pagination and rate behavior are left to the schema.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then sibling comparison, then return-scope, then operational caveat. Nothing is repeated from the schema and every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and the description correctly limits itself to clarifying that only stack metadata comes back. It covers discovery path, follow-up tool, and the no-fallback constraint; the only gap is not hinting at the filtering/ordering options, which the schema handles fully.

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% and the 10 filter/pagination parameters (sfw, sfw_strict, official, spoilers, challenges, sort/order_by) are documented in detail there. The description adds only that the id is a manga mal_id, which is mildly useful but not meaningfully beyond the schema — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the public MyAnimeList Interest Stacks that include a given manga') and immediately scopes the result to public stacks for one manga id. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_anime_interest_stacks and get_interest_stack, so an agent can route without opening 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?

Gives concrete workflow guidance: get the mal_id from search_manga, and pass a stack's own mal_id to get_interest_stack for entries. No explicit 'when not to use' or alternative-listing condition, but the sibling relationships make the boundaries clear.

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