Search favorites

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that the search targets the authenticated user's account, implying an auth requirement, but says nothing about result limits, pagination behavior, or how cursors chain across calls.

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 no filler; the resource and scoping qualifiers lead. It is appropriately terse, though it packs three facets into one clause without much structure.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a cursor-paginated search tool distinguished from several sibling search tools, the description omits routing guidance and cursor-chaining behavior, leaving meaningful gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including site, cursor direction, and category enum. The description names three of them (query, category, cursor) but adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail (e.g. how 'next'/'prev'/'seek' relate) beyond what the schema 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (favorites), scoped to the authenticated user's E-Hentai/ExHentai account, and names the search facets (query, category, cursor). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like eh_search_galleries or eh_search_watched, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'authenticated user's favorites' implies the use case (searching your own favorites rather than the general gallery index), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative such as eh_search_watched or eh_search_galleries. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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