Build an E-Hentai search query

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the bar for the description is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool performs validation (it can reject malformed input) and makes no network request, implying no rate-limit, auth, or latency concerns. There is no contradiction with the 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?

A single 21-word sentence that front-loads the action and resource, enumerates the input condition types, and closes with the key no-network constraint. Every phrase carries information and there is zero filler 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?

The output schema covers the return shape, the 100% schema coverage documents all five optional parameters, and the four annotations establish the safety profile. The description adds the validation behavior and offline nature, leaving only minor gaps such as explicit failure semantics and the unstated-but-implied intent that the generated query feeds a subsequent search call.

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%, with each parameter already documented (e.g., 'Up to 10 tags that results must exclude', 'Up to 10 tags combined as an OR condition'), so the baseline is 3. The description groups the parameters into condition categories (include, exclude, OR, exact-tag, title), which frames their roles holistically, but it adds no detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb ('build and validate') against a specific resource ('native search syntax'), and enumerates the exact condition types it composes: include, exclude, OR, exact-tag, and title. The clause 'without making a network request' sharply distinguishes this offline query builder from the 28 sibling search and query tools, so an agent can tell it apart without inspecting schemas.

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 'without making a network request' clause implies an offline, preparation-oriented use case — constructing and pre-validating a query before a search is executed. However, the description never explicitly names an alternative, states when-not-to-use it, or tells the agent to pass the result into a sibling like eh_search_galleries, leaving the routing to inference.

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