Search favorites

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 fully covered. The description adds the context that this operates on the authenticated user's favorites (implying auth requirements) but discloses nothing about pagination depth, rate limits, or site-specific behavior beyond what the schema already reveals. No contradiction with 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 front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and search dimensions with zero filler. Every word earns its place and the most important scoping detail ('authenticated user's ... favorites') comes first.

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, rich annotations, and 100% parameter coverage carry most of the burden, and the description covers the core purpose adequately. The main gap is the absence of routing guidance among the many sibling search tools (eh_search_galleries, eh_search_watched, eh_search_translated_tags), which matters given the large and overlapping sibling set.

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% with descriptions on all 6 parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description groups parameters conceptually (query, category, cursor) which adds marginal organizational value but no syntax, format, or interaction details 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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clearly bounded resource ('the authenticated user's E-Hentai or ExHentai favorites') and names the search dimensions (native query, favorite category, cursor). This distinguishes it from siblings like eh_search_galleries (general gallery search), eh_search_watched (watched items), and eh_get_favorite_categories (category metadata).

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 this is the destination for favorites-scoped searches, but the description never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it. With 29 siblings including several other search tools, the differentiation is left to inference rather than stated.

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