Read an encyclopedia entry

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds crucial behavioral details: the record can be very large, sections are opt-in, 'basic' covers specific fields, and plot summaries are paginated with truncated/offset/next_offset. This meaningfully expands on annotation hints.

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 compact yet dense, with front-loaded purpose and no redundant phrases. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, prerequisite, opt-in sections, basic fields, and pagination. No wasted words.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: how to start, what to request, and how to handle pagination. It is complete for a read tool with well-annotated safety and idempotency.

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 covers parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds value by explaining the 'sections' enum and what 'basic' includes, and by contextualizing 'offset' with pagination. This goes beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 verb 'Read' with a clear resource ('Anime News Network encyclopedia entry') and the key identifier 'by id'. It also explicitly instructs to obtain id/kind from search_titles, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_titles and list_recent.

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?

Provides clear workflow guidance: 'Get the id and kind from search_titles first' directly tells the agent when to use this tool versus search_titles. It also gives parameter usage advice ('Sections are opt-in', 'ask only for what you need') and pagination instructions for repeated calls.

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