search_characters

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the supported character types (enum values 1-4), pagination behavior with defaults, and authorization needs for nsfw_filter. However, it doesn't cover rate limits, error conditions beyond a generic mention, or detailed response format, leaving gaps in behavioral context.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, args, and returns. It's appropriately sized with no redundant sentences, though the 'Returns' section is vague ('formatted search results or an error message'), which slightly reduces efficiency.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on response structure, error handling, and sibling differentiation. For a search tool with 4 parameters and complex enums, it's adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for all parameters: keyword as search term, limit/offset for pagination with defaults, and nsfw_filter with authorization details. This goes beyond the bare schema, though it could specify format constraints (e.g., keyword length).

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 states the tool searches for characters on Bangumi, specifying the verb 'search' and resource 'characters'. It distinguishes from siblings like search_persons and search_subjects by focusing on characters, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The mention of supported character types adds specificity.

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 implies usage for searching characters, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_character_details or browse_subjects. It mentions authorization requirements for nsfw_filter, which provides some context, but lacks clear guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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