Search E-Hentai galleries

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add behavioral context beyond that. It explains that both E-Hentai and ExHentai are supported, that native syntax is expected, and that translated tag resolution is a prerequisite in some cases. This adds useful operational detail without contradicting 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?

Three focused sentences with the core purpose and filter scope in the first sentence, tag syntax guidance in the second, and the translation routing in the third. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 large parameter set and rich schema/output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral and syntactic context needed to invoke the tool correctly. It lacks explicit guidance on access restrictions for ExHentai and how this tool relates to query-building siblings, but the annotations and schema fill many 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the query-style nature of the tool, clarifying namespace-qualified tag format with concrete examples, and indicating that translated tags must be resolved beforehand. This goes beyond what the schema alone 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 clearly identifies the tool's action ('Search'), the resource ('E-Hentai or ExHentai galleries'), and the core mechanism ('native title and tag syntax'). It is specific enough to distinguish from hash/file-based searches, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from several similarly named sibling search tools.

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?

It provides useful conditional guidance: use eh_search_translated_tags first for translated tag names, and pass native tags directly. However, it does not address when to choose this tool over siblings like eh_search_watched, eh_search_by_hash, or eh_search_favorites, so the guidance is partial.

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