Get detailed gallery information

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the verb 'Read' which aligns with these hints. However, it provides no additional behavioral context such as rate limits, potential null values for optional fields, or behavior when the gallery does not exist. Since annotations cover the baseline, a 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with the action verb 'Read' and then lists the returned data categories. No unnecessary words or repetition. Every part adds value.

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 has a nested object parameter and an output schema, the description explains what is returned but fails to explain how to call the tool (e.g., which identifier to provide, that gallery is required even though it's not marked as required at top level, or that site is optional). It does not differentiate itself from other 'get gallery detail' siblings. The output schema exists, so return format is covered, but calling semantics are incomplete.

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 reported as 0%, meaning the tool's description does not explain any of the three parameters. While the input schema itself has some inline descriptions (e.g., 'Gallery ID', '10-character gallery token'), the description adds no information about how to specify the target gallery (e.g., via the nested gallery object or galleryUrl, or that site defaults to e-hentai). The agent must infer parameter semantics solely from the schema, which is possible but not ideal.

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 'Read' and explicitly lists the resource ('gallery detail fields') and the types of data returned: grouped tags with strength, rating statistics, parent link, and newer gallery versions. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like eh_get_gallery_metadata (which likely returns fewer fields) and eh_get_gallery_chain (which focuses on parent/child relationships).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many alternative gallery tools (e.g., eh_get_gallery_metadata, eh_get_gallery_chain, eh_find_latest_gallery_version). It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts where this tool is preferable. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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