get_anime_detail_points

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a 'JSON string containing a list of detailed location points,' which adds some context about the output format. However, it doesn't cover critical behavioral aspects such as error handling (e.g., invalid IDs), rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. There's no wasted text, and each part adds value. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter explanation into the main sentence, but overall it's efficient.

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 context: 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns' note). The description covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics adequately. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., error cases) and usage guidelines relative to siblings. With an output schema, it doesn't need to explain return values deeply, but overall completeness is minimal viable with clear gaps.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema: it explains that 'subject_id' is 'The Bangumi ID of the anime,' clarifying its purpose and format (an ID for anime). Since schema description coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema properties), the description compensates well by providing this context, though it could elaborate more (e.g., where to find Bangumi IDs). With 1 parameter, this is adequate.

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: 'Get the detailed seichi junrei (anime pilgrimage) locations for a specific anime using its Bangumi ID.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('detailed seichi junrei locations'), and key identifier ('Bangumi ID'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_anime_lite_info' or 'search_bangumi', which likely serve different purposes (lite info vs. search).

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 provides minimal usage guidance: it mentions using a 'Bangumi ID' for a 'specific anime,' implying this tool is for known anime IDs. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use rules, alternatives (e.g., when to use 'get_anime_lite_info' instead), or exclusions (e.g., not for searching by name). This leaves gaps in guiding the agent on tool selection among siblings.

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