Get Anime Ranking

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) by detailing the return format (text table + structured content) and pagination behavior (offset, has_more). It does not contradict annotations. A 5 would require even more depth, such as rate limits or caching, but it is already strong.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then provides details on ranking types and return structure. It is informative without being overly verbose, though the list could be slightly streamlined. Every sentence earns its place.

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 output schema, the description fully explains the return values and their meaning. It covers ranking types, pagination fields, and entry details. Combined with thorough annotations, this makes the tool self-contained for correct invocation.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by listing the ranking_type enum values and explaining that 'all' means top by score. It also describes the return structure with fields like 'total_returned' and 'has_more'. Schema description coverage is high (67%), so the baseline is 3, but the description compensates well.

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 'Fetch MAL's official anime rankings' with a specific verb and resource. It lists ranking types and the return structure, making the purpose explicit. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_anime or get_anime_detail, which would raise it to 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 description implies usage for fetching rankings but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest siblings for other purposes. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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