Read an encyclopedia entry

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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing the large response size and the opt-in section behavior, plus the pagination mechanism: 'when ‘truncated’ is true, call again with ‘offset’ set to ‘next_offset’'. This is significant behavioral context not present in the readOnlyHint or idempotentHint.

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 three concise sentences, each earning its place: it states the action, provides the prerequisite and selection guidance, and explains pagination. No redundant or filler content.

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 annotations, full schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all key behavioral aspects: it explains the source of IDs, the large-size caveat, section selection, and pagination. There are no critical gaps for a read-only lookup tool.

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 already documents all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the purpose of sections in relation to response size and tying 'offset' and 'next_offset' to pagination, which enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific action verb ('Read') and a clearly defined resource ('one Anime News Network encyclopedia entry by id'). It also differentiates from siblings by stating the prerequisite of using 'search_titles' first, making it distinct from search and list operations.

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 clear usage context: 'Get the id and kind from search_titles first' and instructs to 'ask only for what you need' because sections are opt-in. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or contrast with alternatives like list_recent or get_news, so it lacks an explicit exclusion.

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