search anime

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. Beyond that, the description adds useful context about returning verified AniList IDs and current list entries, and warns against silently choosing ambiguous titles; pagination and rate-limit behavior remain unmentioned.

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 sentences with no wasted language: purpose first, return values second, and recommendation workflow third. The most important routing and ambiguity constraints are front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, return content at a high level, and recommendation workflow, but with eight parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, more detail on pagination, adult-content filtering, and return shape would be needed for full completeness.

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 carry parameter meaning. It usefully maps title, genre, year, popularity, and exclusion of watched/current/repeating/dropped titles to relevant parameters, but it leaves page, per_page, include_adult, and sort enum values unexplained.

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, names the search modes (title, genre, year, popularity), and clarifies that results are candidate anime rather than detail records. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_anime_details and search_manga without requiring schema inspection.

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?

It gives a clear recommendation workflow: analyze the complete library first, then exclude watched/current/repeating/dropped titles. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_anime_details or search_manga, but the usage context is strong enough for an agent to know when this search tool is appropriate.

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