search_anime_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only names the search scope. It says nothing about ranking, result limits, whether queries are literal or semantic, or what a no-match response looks like. For a retrieval tool this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action and target stated first, followed by parenthetical examples. The example list is somewhat long but each item clarifies the query granularity, so it largely earns its place.

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 one-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope and query style but omits anything about returned results or failure behavior. It is minimally viable rather than complete.

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, but the description adds genuine value beyond the schema by giving concrete example terms ('spring', 'timeline', 'stagger', 'memory', 'x', 'composition') that demonstrate the expected granularity of the query string.

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 ('Busca') and resource ('base de conocimiento y catálogo de Anime.js v4'), so the agent knows this is a keyword lookup over documentation. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_parameter_details or list_engine_parameters, but the search-vs-fetch distinction is reasonably inferable.

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 only implied: the agent can guess this is the tool to reach for when it doesn't know the exact doc entry, but the description never says when to prefer it over get_parameter_details, get_migration_guide, or the other sibling getters. The example keywords hint at intent but are not routing guidance.

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