Search the encyclopedia

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral specifics: substring matching, the 'compact row' fields (id, kind, type, name, precision, vintage), and the limitation to title-only search. This goes beyond the annotation safety profile.

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?

Four sentences, no filler. It front-loads purpose, then covers output format, usage workflow, and limitations. Every sentence carries information without redundancy.

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 search tool with a rich output schema and straightforward params, the description covers purpose, return values, workflow with get_title, matching behavior, and search scope limitations. The output schema handles field details, so nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The description reinforces the query param's substring behavior but does not add new semantics for kind or limit beyond what the schema already explains.

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 explicitly states 'Search the Anime News Network encyclopedia for anime and manga by title' – a specific verb, resource, and scope. It further distinguishes from siblings by noting 'This searches titles only. It cannot find an entry from a plot detail, a character or a studio.'

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 clear follow-up guidance: 'Use the id and kind with get_title to read the full entry.' It also advises on query tuning: 'Matching is on substring... narrow the query rather than raising limit.' It explicitly states what the tool cannot do, preventing misuse.

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