get_manga_details

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

The verb 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, but with no annotations, the description carries the responsibility to disclose behavioral traits such as permissions, rate limits, response size, or error conditions. It mentions optional field selection but offers no further context about API behavior or side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the core function ('Fetch details for one manga') and the main optional capability ('optionally selecting MAL response fields'). No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately states the primary function and field-selection capability. However, it does not explain what 'details' includes, mention that manga_id is required, or differentiate from get_manga. It relies on the schema for parameter-level details and lacks richer contextual guidance, though it is not severely deficient.

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 schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (manga_id and fields). The tool description adds context about 'optionally selecting MAL response fields,' which clarifies the purpose of the fields parameter, but it does not elaborate on valid field values or how to use them. The manga_id parameter is self-explanatory and not enhanced by the description.

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 fetches details for one manga, using the specific verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'details for one manga.' It distinguishes from list/ranking siblings by specifying a single manga, but does not explicitly contrast with get_manga, which may also fetch a single manga.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you need details for a specific manga rather than a list or ranking. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternative tools like get_manga or get_manga_list.

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