Get manga recommendations

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it specifies the cap at 25 recommendations, no pagination, the sfw/sfw_strict filtering behavior, and the transparent fallback to the official API when Tenrai is unavailable, including differences in ordering/counts and ignoring sfw filters. This fully informs the agent of the tool's behavior.

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: four sentences with no redundant words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, alternatives are given immediately, and details about filtering and fallback follow logically. Every sentence earns its place.

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 3 parameters, an output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers all aspects: purpose, usage, filtering behavior, fallback mechanism, and distinguishing from siblings. No gaps remain.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the sfw/sfw_strict parameters in context ('filter NSFW entries out of the recommendation list itself') and noting that during fallback these filters are ignored. This enriches understanding beyond the schema descriptions.

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 and resource: 'Get community recommendations for manga similar to the given mal_id, ordered by votes and capped at the top 25 (no pagination).' It also distinguishes from siblings like get_top_manga and get_recent_manga_recommendations, ensuring the agent knows when to use this tool.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use get_top_manga instead for a global popularity/score ranking not tied to one title, or get_recent_manga_recommendations for a site-wide feed of recommendation pairs not tied to this title either.' It also tells how to obtain the mal_id: 'Get the mal_id from search_manga.' This helps the agent decide when to use this tool.

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