anime_info

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden. It does disclose three behaviors: results are 'compact' (format), it checks 'Medusa presence' (side-effect-free lookup), and 'Does not add anime' (readiness confirmation). But the default score thresholding (min_score=88, score_gap=8) is entirely hidden, so an agent cannot foretell that a no-arg call returns only high-scored results.

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?

Two sentences with zero scaffolding: the first delivers verb+resource+key parameters and the second is a focused exclusion with no lexical fat. Every token earns context.

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 7-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage the description is too thin. Although an output_schema exists and sprites the need to describe return values, the unexpected default scoring (min_score=88, score_gap=8) changes the meaning of a no-arg call and is not disclosed anywhere. The 'does not add' line is good but does not close the gap around how many results come back and under what criteria.

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 0%, the intended over-write is required. The description explains title and mal-ud (both named in text), and implies source myanimel; the other five parameters (limit, source, min_score, score_gap and the max fields) remain completely unexplained. With this low coverage and no schema narratives, the description compensation be heavier to compensate, and it doesn't.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource – 'Return compact anime details and Medusa presence by title or MAL ID' – so an agent knows at once what it does and how it finds results. The closing ' Does not add anime' explicitly separates it write-related siblings like add_anime, resolve_and_add_anime, and bulk_add_anime. This distinguishes it from siblings without requiring a schema.

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 'Does not add animes' sentence is a useful negative scope marker – it tells the agent this is not for creation tasks. However, it never says when to prefer this over sibling lookups (search_tvdb, seasonal_anime, resolve_anime_title, diagnose_release_groups) and names no alternatives explicitly. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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