Browse a gallery source

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: query overrides ranking, sort is ignored when query is set, and category-only mode is not a keyword search. It does not contradict the annotations. Minor gap: no mention of pagination limits beyond the schema's page maximum, but the schema covers that.

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 four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the routing rule, then the mode behavior, then the follow-up action. Every sentence earns its place and there is zero filler.

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 browse tool with a rich schema and an output schema present, the description covers the key decision points: when to use search(), how query/category/sort interact, and what to do with the results. It does not enumerate every source-specific period value, but the schema already documents those. The only minor omission is an explicit note about what the output items look like, but the output schema presumably covers that.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds a little extra meaning by clarifying the relationship between query, sort, and category, but it does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('galleries from one source'), and the two ranking modes ('popular or latest'). It also distinguishes itself from search() by naming the sibling and the condition that selects it. This is a clear, non-tautological definition that an agent can act on.

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 explicitly says when to use search() instead ('when the user names a character, series, model, or tag'), and explains the behavior when query is set vs. only category is set. It also routes the next step ('Pass each item's path to get_gallery'). This is strong, actionable guidance with clear alternatives.

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