get currently watching

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read with openWorldHint, so the description's job is lighter. It adds genuinely useful behavioral context — that the result set is split into separate CURRENT and REPEATING pages, each with its own pageInfo, and that both must be followed. It does not disclose auth requirements or maximum page limits, keeping this at an adequate rather than rich level.

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?

Three short sentences with no waste; the pagination caveat and the include_repeating instruction are front-loaded after the one-line purpose. Every sentence adds decision-relevant information.

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?

For a 3-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical operating detail — split pagination with two pageInfo cursors — that an agent would otherwise get wrong. The main remaining gap is silent page/per_page parameters, but overall an agent could call this correctly from the description plus schema.

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 carries the burden, and it does explain the semantically tricky parameter (include_repeating) with its default-off behavior and what it adds. However, page and per_page are never mentioned, and their non-obvious constraints (per_page caps at 50, page at 10000) go undiscussed. Partial compensation only.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read a paginated anime list' scoped to the CURRENT watching status, which distinguishes it from the broader get_my_anime_list sibling. It doesn't explicitly name that sibling as the alternative, but the status scoping is clear enough for an agent to tell the tools apart.

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?

Usage is implied by the status scoping: use this when you want currently-watching entries, not completed/planned. The include_repeating flag is given a condition ('to also return the separate REPEATING page for rewatches'), but the description never names an explicit alternative for other statuses, so the when-not guidance is left to inference.

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