get_chapter_access_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns metadata and URLs, and explicitly states a behavioral constraint ('MangaDex does not provide PDF/CBZ download URLs here'), which is useful context. However, it doesn't cover other potential behaviors like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or response format details, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 that are front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently add a critical exclusion. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), 1 parameter with 100% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description provides good contextual completeness. It clearly states the tool's purpose and a key limitation (no PDF/CBZ URLs), which compensates for the lack of annotations. However, it could be more complete by explicitly differentiating from sibling tools or mentioning any authentication requirements.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'chapterId' fully documented in the schema as a MangaDex UUID. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or usage notes. Since the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately, the 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 the action ('Return') and resource ('chapter access metadata'), specifying what information is included (MangaDex reader URL or external host URL) and what is excluded (PDF/CBZ download URLs). It distinguishes from siblings like export_chapter_cbz/pdf by explicitly stating what it doesn't provide, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_manga_chapters or get_manga_details.

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 implies usage by stating what the tool returns and what it doesn't (no PDF/CBZ URLs), suggesting it's for accessing reading URLs rather than downloads. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_manga_chapters or get_manga_external_links, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions beyond the format limitation.

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