anilist_similar

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by stating the output contains 'similarity %, shared genres, and community rec strength' and clarifies that no user profile is needed, which is not present in annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and use cases, with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys purpose, usage, and output characteristics.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers purpose, usage, and output format (ranked results with specific fields). It lacks details on error handling or edge cases but is sufficient for most scenarios.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description does not add additional meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Find titles similar to a specific anime or manga' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings by noting it does not need a user profile, which contrasts with other recommendation tools that might require profile data.

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 specifies when to use: 'when the user asks for shows like a specific title, or wants content-based recommendations without needing a user profile.' It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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