anilist_pace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it uses historical pace and returns an estimated date, which is consistent. No contradictions or additional behavioral insights 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 defines the tool, second gives usage scenarios and return value. No filler, front-loaded. Could be slightly more structured but efficient for the information conveyed.

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 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description explains the return value (estimated completion date) and usage context. It is complete enough for a pace estimation tool, though it doesn't detail behavior when mediaId is omitted for all titles.

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 all parameters described. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it reiterates the purpose. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 'estimate' and resource 'pace', clearly stating it returns a completion date based on historical pace. It distinguishes from siblings like 'anilist_list' or 'anilist_update_progress' by focusing on time estimation.

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 says when to use: 'when the user asks how long it'll take to finish something, their watch rate, or wants a progress summary.' It implies it's for currently watching/reading titles. It does not mention when not to use, but the guidance is clear and helpful.

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