List anime in the QuiJutsu asset library

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds genuinely new context by outlining what the response contains (counts, contribution-open titles, breakdown dimensions) — valuable given there is no output schema — though it says nothing about result size or pagination for what could be a long catalog listing.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and ends with actionable routing to search_assets; nothing is wasted. It is slightly packed with parallel list items, but each clause maps to a real part of the output.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, describing the shape of the result is the main burden, and the description does that across all three output groupings. The only gap is guidance on result volume or how to handle an empty/unknown-title response, which is minor here.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. No parameter statements are needed or missing.

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?

Specific verb (list) plus precisely enumerated resource contents: titles with public assets and counts, titles open to community contributions, and a breakdown by type and Spirit Level. It is immediately distinguishable from search_assets, which it explicitly names as the downstream consumer of this list.

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?

"Call this first to learn which titles search_assets can filter on" gives explicit sequencing advice and names the alternative, which is more than most definitions offer. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g. when the caller already knows the title), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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