search_subjects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a search operation (implied read-only), mentions pagination limits ('Max 50'), default values, and return format ('Formatted search results or an error message'). However, it doesn't cover rate limits, authentication needs, or detailed error conditions.

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, supported types/sorts, args, and returns. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information. Every sentence adds value, though the formatting could be slightly more front-loaded.

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?

For a search tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a decent job. It explains parameters and return format but lacks details on result structure, error types, or integration with sibling tools. It's minimally adequate but has clear 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds significant value by explaining all 5 parameters: keyword purpose, subject_type mapping (integer to type names), sort options with defaults, and pagination semantics (limit/offset with defaults and max). This goes well beyond the bare schema.

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's purpose: 'Search for subjects on Bangumi.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('subjects'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'browse_subjects' or 'search_characters' beyond the resource type.

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 alternatives like 'browse_subjects' or other search tools. It mentions supported subject types and sort orders but doesn't explain when to apply these filters or choose this tool over other subject-related tools.

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