anilist_wrapped_card

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

Discloses that the tool returns a PNG image and outlines the content of the card. The annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint) are consistent, and the description adds value by specifying output type and summary details.

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 pack all essential information: purpose, output, content, and use case. No redundant words, front-loaded with key verb and resource.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what the card contains and that it returns a PNG. It does not detail image dimensions or how to access the image, but for a card generation tool, the coverage is sufficient.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (username fallback, year default, type default). The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score applies.

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 tool generates a shareable year-in-review card image, specifying the output format (PNG) and contents (titles, genres, scores, etc.). This distinguishes it from related siblings like anilist_seasonal_recap_card or anilist_taste_card.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use when someone wants a visual recap of their year.' While it does not list alternatives or when-not-to-use, the context is clear and helps an agent decide appropriately.

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