anilist_evolution

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to reiterate safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating the output format ('era-by-era genre rankings and shift descriptions'), which goes beyond the annotation info.

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 three sentences: first sentence defines the tool, second gives usage triggers, third describes the return value. No unnecessary words; it is front-loaded and self-contained.

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 read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage triggers, and return format. It is sufficient for an AI agent to understand what the tool does and when to invoke it.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters (username, type) having descriptions and the type having an enum. The description does not add extra parameter-level detail; it only mentions the output. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb 'analysis showing' and clearly identifies the resource as genre evolution over time. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on taste change and timeline, which is unique among the many anilist_* tools.

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 lists usage triggers: 'how their taste has changed', 'what they used to watch vs now', or 'timeline of their preferences'. This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools.

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