List recent or browse alphabetically

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds valuable behavioral context by stating that 'starts_with' switches to alphabetical browsing, is restricted to anime/manga, and that rows carry an id usable with 'get_title'. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide, though it doesn't describe pagination details or output format, keeping it at a 4.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It mixes listing behavior, a special mode, and alternative tool guidance without redundancy or verbosity.

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 an output schema, comprehensive annotations, and a fully described input schema, the description covers the essential contextual gaps: the difference between listing and search, the chaining to get_title, and the constraints of starts_with. There is no missing critical information for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, with every parameter already described. The description still adds meaning by explaining how 'starts_with' affects behavior (alphabetical browse and anime/manga only) and highlighting the id's role in chaining to 'get_title'. This enhances the schema's bare definitions, justifying a score above the baseline.

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 the tool's purpose: listing recent additions to the Anime News Network encyclopedia, with options for anime, manga, people, or companies. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly saying 'This is a listing, not a search' and naming the alternative 'search_titles', plus references to 'get_title' for follow-up.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: when to list recent additions, how to switch to alphabetical browsing via 'starts_with', which kinds are supported for that mode, and when to use 'search_titles' instead. It even explains that returned IDs can be passed to 'get_title' for specific kinds, providing clear alternatives and context.

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