Get an anime episode

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses the blocking condition when chapters exceed the spoiler limit and clarifies that the chapters field is empty for filler episodes. This enriches the agent's understanding of potential failures and return content without contradicting the annotations.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the full list of returned fields, and the second succinctly states the blocking condition. Every word contributes value, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, annotations covering safety), the description is largely complete. It covers what is returned, the filler behavior, and the spoiler blocking. Minor gaps include absence of error handling (e.g., nonexistent episode) and explicit scope (which anime), but these are not critical given the sibling context and typical usage. Overall, an agent can correctly invoke the tool.

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% for the single parameter 'number' (described as 'Episode number' with a minimum of 1). The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. With full schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate.

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 what the tool returns: episode title, air date, season, opening song, adapted chapters, and a summary. It also names a specific constraint (blocking on spoiler limit) that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_chapter and get_arc. The verb is implied ('retrieves'), but the resource and its content are explicit, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 context about a blocking condition (spoiler limit) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't say 'use this for episode details, use get_chapter for chapter details,' leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the tool name and sibling list. The guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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