Get my anime list

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description only needs to add non-redundant behavior details. It does: it discloses the authentication dependency and indicates the returned entries are the user's personal scores/progress. This is consistent with the annotations and adds beyond them.

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?

Two sentences occupy about twenty-one words with zero filler. The action, resource, and scope come first, and the auth precondition follows in the second sentence. Every clause 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?

With all four parameters documented in the schema, an output schema present, and readOnly/openWorld annotations covering safety, the description only needs to convey the data domain and prerequisites — which it does. An agent deciding whether to call this tool has everything needed: scope, auth state, and expected entry content.

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 description coverage is 100%: sort, limit, offset, and status each carry their own type, constraints, and semantics, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description mentions status/score/progress, mapping loosely to the status parameter, but adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, keeping this at baseline.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Get') with a precisely scoped resource ('the authenticated user's own anime list') and enumerates the per-entry fields (status, score, progress). The 'authenticated user's own' framing cleanly distinguishes it from public-catalog siblings like search_anime, get_top_anime, and get_anime.

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 clear usage context: it targets the logged-in user's personal list, and it states a precondition ('Requires a MyAnimeList login') that tells the agent when this tool can be invoked. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios (e.g., 'for public ranking data use get_top_anime').

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