Get Manga Ranking

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

Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by detailing the fields in each entry (rank, title, etc.) and referencing pagination via limit/offset. No contradiction with readOnlyHint/openWorldHint.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second lists types and return shape. No filler, front-loaded with critical information.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides a thorough list of entry fields, ranking types, and references pagination. Combined with annotations, it is fully informative.

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 67% with descriptions for limit and offset, but ranking_type only has enum values. The description compensates by listing all ranking types and detailing the return shape, adding meaning beyond the 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 explicitly states 'Fetch MAL's official manga rankings', using a specific verb and resource. It lists ranking types and notes the return shape is identical to get_anime_ranking, distinguishing it from that sibling tool.

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 clearly indicates it is for manga rankings and provides the available ranking_type options. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it, the context is sufficiently clear given the sibling tools like get_anime_ranking.

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