zerochan_browse

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. While annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operations, the description specifies that it 'Supports sorting by recency or popularity, filtering by dimensions or color, and pagination' and details the return format options. It doesn't contradict annotations (readOnlyHint=true aligns with 'browse'), but provides important implementation details about filtering capabilities and output formats.

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 perfectly structured and concise. It begins with a clear purpose statement, provides usage context, then details parameters in a well-organized format, and concludes with return value information. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the most important details first.

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 complexity (multiple filtering/sorting options) and the presence of annotations and output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, all parameters with semantics, and the return format differences. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return structure, and it appropriately focuses on behavioral aspects.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage (the schema has descriptions but coverage calculation shows 0%), the description provides comprehensive parameter documentation in the Args section. It explains all 8 parameters with their purposes, defaults, constraints, and enums. This fully compensates for any schema coverage gaps and adds substantial value beyond what the schema structure alone provides.

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 tool's purpose: 'Browse all Zerochan entries with optional filtering and pagination.' It specifies the verb ('browse'), resource ('Zerochan entries'), and scope ('all'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like zerochan_search (which presumably filters by tags) and zerochan_get_entry (which likely retrieves a specific entry).

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 states when to use this tool: 'Queries the Zerochan global feed without any tag filter.' This clearly differentiates it from zerochan_search (which would use tag filters) and provides a specific use case (browsing the global feed). The guidance is direct and helpful for tool selection.

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