Search the QuiJutsu Community Asset Library

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: it discloses the return shape (one page plus total_count for paging) and defines the domain-specific Spirit Level scale (1-8, how deep a fan needs to be to know it), which no annotation conveys.

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?

Three tight sentences: what the library holds, how to filter it, and what comes back. The most decision-relevant content (the searchable scope and the Spirit Level definition) is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place with no 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?

With no output schema, the description steps up by stating that results are one page plus total_count, which is exactly what paging needs. Combined with the fully documented 7-parameter schema and complete annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the absence of sibling routing and filter-interaction notes keeps it from a 5.

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% and every parameter carries its own description, example, or bounds, so baseline 3 applies. The description echoes four of the seven filters but adds no syntax, matching semantics, or precedence detail beyond what the schema already states — notably it omits any mention of limit/offset or the anime_id-over-anime_title precedence rule documented in 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Search the public QuiJutsu Community Asset Library") and enumerates exactly what is searchable (characters, abilities, locations, weapons) plus what is attached to each result (review status, Spirit Level). The purpose is unmistakable, though the description itself never names a sibling tool to contrast with, leaving that differentiation to the schema note about list_anime_titles.

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 phrase "Filter by name, type, anime title or Spirit Level" implies when the tool is appropriate, and the paging note implies continuation usage. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives — e.g. nothing in the description points at list_anime_titles or get_asset_provenance, even though a caller unsure about a title string or wanting provenance detail needs that routing.

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