get_manga_ranking

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

The description lacks behavioral details beyond the basic fetch operation. It does not disclose whether it is read-only, mention rate limits, data freshness, or pagination behavior. Additionally, it contradicts the schema by stating default limit is 10 while schema says 100.

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 fairly concise with a docstring-style Args block, but it includes a factual error and uses Python-specific formatting that may not be ideal for all agents. It could be more structured and accurate.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should cover return format, error handling, and pagination details. It does not mention what the function returns or how to handle errors, leaving significant gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the ranking_type options and mentions defaults for limit and offset, but the default for limit is incorrect (description says 10, schema says 100). This error reduces reliability.

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 'Fetches manga rankings from MyAnimeList' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_manga_list or get_manga_details, which deal with individual manga or lists rather than rankings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_manga_list or get_manga_ranking from other sources. There are no prerequisites, limitations, or examples of appropriate use cases.

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