anilist_follow_suggestions

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and non-destructive (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint). The description adds value by disclosing that it ranks by taste compatibility and requires token authentication, beyond what annotations provide.

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: first states purpose, second provides ranking detail and requirements. No redundancy or unnecessary words.

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?

Without an output schema, the description omits return value details. However, the tool's output is implied (list of suggestions). Given the task's simplicity and annotations, it is mostly adequate.

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%. The description adds semantic value: for 'username' it mentions fallback default behavior, for 'type' it clarifies comparing anime or manga taste, and for 'limit' it restates default and max. This enhances understanding beyond 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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Find AniList users with similar taste from your following list' and 'Ranks people you follow by taste compatibility'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like anilist_compare or anilist_taste which focus on comparing or listing taste profiles.

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 mentions the prerequisite 'Requires ANILIST_TOKEN for following list access', providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the purpose is specific enough to guide usage.

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