Get top manga

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds significant behavioral context: when Tenrai is down, it transparently retries via the official API, with details on how `type`/`filter` are merged, `themes`/`demographics` return empty, and `sfw_strict` degrades to `sfw`-like filtering. This goes well beyond 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?

Two sentences: the first states the core purpose concisely, the second details fallback behavior. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the primary 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 the tool's complexity (fallback logic, multiple parameters, existing output schema), the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral edge cases comprehensively. Pagination and parameter details are in the schema, so no need to repeat.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how parameters behave under the fallback (merged `type`/`filter`, empty `themes`/`demographics`, degraded `sfw_strict`). It does not repeat schema descriptions but clarifies dynamic behavior.

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 it returns manga ranked by all-time score/popularity, not tied to any release window, and mentions the `filter` parameter for special rankings. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_seasonal_anime (release-window-specific) and get_top_anime (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 provides explicit usage context: it is for all-time rankings (not seasonal), and notes that `filter` can be used for special rankings. It also describes the fallback behavior when Tenrai is unavailable, which guides the agent on possible degraded functionality. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_manga or get_manga.

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