search_jav

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns 'paginated JAV results' and raises errors on validation failure, which adds useful context beyond the input schema. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects, leaving gaps for a search operation.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by structured sections for Args, Returns, and Raises. Each sentence adds value, though the 'ctx' parameter note could be considered redundant if automatically injected, slightly reducing 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 the complexity of a search tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers input semantics and basic return/error info but lacks details on output structure, pagination behavior, or performance characteristics, which could hinder effective agent use.

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 significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'search_term' can include 'JAV title, code, performer name' and 'year' is an 'optional filter by release year (1900-current year)', clarifying usage and constraints not evident from the schema alone. This compensates well for the low schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Search for Japanese Adult Video content') and resource ('JAV content'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'search_movies' or 'search_performers' by specifying the exact domain of adult video content. It uses precise verbs ('Search for') and identifies the target resource unambiguously.

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 'search_movies' or 'search_performers', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It only describes what the tool does without contextual usage instructions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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