Get user favorites

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

The description discloses the tool is for public users and requires a username. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds modest context (public nature). No contradictions, but minimal behavioral detail beyond annotation coverage.

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 a single sentence of 13 words with no fluff. It front-loads the action ('Get') and resource ('favorites'), making it immediately clear.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema, clear annotations), the description fully captures what the tool does and its required input. It needs no additional detail on return format or behavior.

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?

The only parameter 'username' is described in the schema with 'MyAnimeList username.' The tool description does not add further semantics beyond 'public' context. With 100% schema description coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description adds no additional param-level detail.

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 retrieves a public MyAnimeList user's favorite anime, manga, characters, and people by username. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('favorites'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on single resources or list management.

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 implies usage context: for public users and requires a username. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but the singular purpose (favorites) naturally guides selection. A slightly more explicit 'when-to-use' statement would improve it.

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