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 safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningfully: it clarifies this lists only public stacks, returns only metadata (not entries), and exposes a hard dependency on Tenrai reachability with no fallback. This goes beyond what annotations or schema state. A small deduction because the description doesn't mention pagination/rate-limit behavior, but the schema already documents pagination parameters.

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 compact: three sentences, each carrying distinct information. It front-loads the core purpose, then differentiates from the anime counterpart, then gives the entry-point and dependency warning. 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 that output schema exists, the description needn't describe return fields. The tool's complexity is high due to 10 parameters and 5 filter enums, but the schema covers them fully; the description supplies exactly what the schema cannot: when to use it, how to source the id, what it returns versus what get_interest_stack does, and the fallback limitation. This is complete for safe invocation.

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 every parameter has a thorough description in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds value by hinting at the key input flow (mal_id from search_manga) and clarifying that stack mal_ids are the relevant IDs, but it doesn't enumerate each parameter or re-explain the filter semantics. The schema already carries that weight.

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 a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('public MyAnimeList Interest Stacks'), and a precise scope ('that include a given manga by mal_id'). It also positions itself as the manga counterpart of get_anime_interest_stacks, which helps distinguish it from siblings at a glance.

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 gives concrete routing guidance: get the mal_id from search_manga, and hand a stack's own mal_id to get_interest_stack for entries. It also explicitly warns that no official-API fallback exists and the tool requires Tenrai to be reachable, which tells the agent when to avoid or fail over this tool.

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