Build an E-Hentai search query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by stating the tool both 'builds' and 'validates' the syntax, disclosing the validation behavior beyond what annotations provide. It also clarifies no network request is made, which is a key behavioral trait not in 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the tool's core action and then lists the specific conditions handled. Every element earns its place—no filler, no duplication of schema or annotations. It is appropriately sized for the tool's moderate complexity.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, all simple types), high-quality annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and presence of an output schema (so return format is documented elsewhere), the description is complete. It explains the tool's offline nature and validation aspect, which covers key functional context without needing to replicate schema or output documentation.

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 0%, meaning the description must compensate for explaining parameters. The description lists all parameter categories ('include, exclude, OR, exact-tag, and title conditions'), mapping clearly to the properties in the schema (title, orTags, exactTags, excludeTags, includeTags). While it doesn't elaborate on each parameter's format, the naming and tool context provide sufficient meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Build and validate') and specifies the resource ('native search syntax' for E-Hentai). It clearly details the structured components handled ('include, exclude, OR, exact-tag, and title conditions') and distinguishes itself from siblings that perform network searches (like 'eh_search_galleries') by stating it operates 'without making a network request'.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for building a query offline, which contrasts with search tools that make API requests. It implies use before actual searches like 'eh_search_galleries', but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the exact sibling alternatives. The context is clear but lacks explicit when-not or alternative guidance.

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