Get producers/studios

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

Annotations already declare 'readOnlyHint: true' and 'openWorldHint: true', so the description does not need to reiterate safety. It adds context about returning MAL IDs and counts, but does not elaborate on pagination, sorting behavior, or other relevant details. With annotations present, a score of 3 is appropriate – adequate but not exemplary.

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 core purpose, and wastes no words. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second gives usage guidance and references the sibling tool for further action.

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 an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere) and annotations declare read-only and open-world behavior, the description is complete enough for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. It covers the primary use case, search, and directs to the sibling tool for deeper details.

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 the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. The description notes the 'q' parameter for search, but the schema already describes it as 'Filter by name.' No extra semantic value is provided for other parameters. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 action ('List or search') and the resource ('anime producers and studios'), and explicitly mentions the output includes 'MAL IDs and counts'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_producer' by referencing it as a different tool for full profiles.

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 states when to use this tool ('Use `q` to search by name') and provides a clear alternative ('then get_producer for one studio's full profile'). This helps the agent know when to choose this tool over the sibling 'get_producer'.

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