Get manga statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, immutable operation. The description adds critical behavioral context: 'no official-API fallback exists for this tool — it always needs Tenrai itself to be reachable.' This provides information beyond what annotations capture.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and every part earns its place—no filler. It is efficient and easy to parse.

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 one parameter with full schema coverage and an output schema present, the description adequately covers what the tool returns, how to obtain the input, and a key behavioral distinction from a sibling tool. 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the parameter is a mal_id and instructing the agent to get it from search_manga, which aids correct parameter selection beyond the schema's simple description.

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 gets read-status counts and score distribution for a manga by mal_id. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from get_anime_statistics by mentioning the absence of an official-API fallback.

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 explicitly tells the agent to obtain the mal_id from search_manga, providing clear usage context. It also contrasts with get_anime_statistics regarding the fallback, but does not enumerate alternative tools or conditions for when not 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.