Get manga reviews

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds detailed behavioral traits: review text truncation, distinction between chapters_read and episodes_watched, community reaction counts, and the interplay between limit and page. No contradiction with 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 a single paragraph that front-loades the core purpose. It is reasonably concise, containing essential information without redundancy. However, it could be more structured into bullet points for easier scanning, but remains effective.

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 7 parameters with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: input requirements, parameter behaviors, filtering options, and specific fields. There are no obvious gaps for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

All 7 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining defaults (limit=5, sort=most_helpful), the relationship between limit and page, and the semantics of fields like chapters_read. This goes beyond the schema definitions.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves user reviews for one manga using mal_id, listing specific fields (review text truncated to 1200 characters, score, spoiler/preliminary flags, chapters_read, community reactions). It differentiates from sibling tools like get_anime_reviews by specifying manga focus.

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 explains when to use (for manga reviews) and how to get the mal_id from search_manga. It clarifies parameter behaviors (limit vs page, sort default, filter usage). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., for anime reviews), though sibling context implies this.

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