Get recent anime recommendations

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds a real availability constraint — no fallback data source, so failure means failure. It doesn't say anything about feed recency window, ordering, or pagination depth beyond the schema, so it's strong but not fully revealing.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct load: what it returns, which sibling to use instead, and the availability caveat. Scope is established in the first clause with no preamble.

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?

An output schema exists and the schema fully documents the four optional params, so remaining burden is light. The description covers identity, disambiguation, and the one operational gotcha; only feed freshness/ordering is unstated, a minor gap for a browse tool.

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%, and the sfw/sfw_strict distinctions are documented in detail in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g. how sfw interacts with the feed, or default page size), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a site-wide feed of recently-submitted anime recommendation pairs'), defines the shape of the items (X→Y pairs with user commentary), and explicitly disclaims a scope ('not tied to any one title'). That contrast alone separates it from get_anime_recommendations, a sibling with a nearly identical name.

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?

Names the alternative ('Use get_anime_recommendations instead for recommendations similar to a specific mal_id') and gives the exact condition that selects it. It also tells the agent when this tool is unusable (Tenrai must be reachable, no official-API fallback), which is a genuine selection constraint.

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