get_manga_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's purpose and preference for metadata-only reporting, but lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. The mention of 'Prefer reporting only this metadata' adds some context, but more behavioral information would be helpful.

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 core purpose and followed by a usage preference. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 one parameter with full schema coverage and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and usage preference, but as a read operation with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral details like response structure or limitations, though the output schema mitigates this.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the mangaId parameter. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but since there's only one parameter and coverage is high, the baseline is 3. The description's focus on metadata and external links gives slight context, raising it to 4.

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 specific action ('Return'), resource ('MangaDex metadata and mapped external links for a manga'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'Prefer reporting only this metadata, not general background knowledge', which differentiates it from tools like search_manga that might return broader results.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Prefer reporting only this metadata'), implying it's for detailed metadata retrieval rather than general searches. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as distinguishing from get_manga_external_links which might focus only on links.

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