get_anime_lite_info

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 mentions that the tool returns 'JSON string containing the lite info, including `litePoints` which are the top 10 iconic locations,' which adds some context about the return format and content. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies reading). This provides minimal but not comprehensive behavioral insight.

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 tool's purpose, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections that efficiently provide additional details without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, parameter semantics, and return content ('litePoints' as top 10 iconic locations). However, it lacks usage guidelines and could benefit from more behavioral context, such as error cases or performance notes, to be fully comprehensive for an AI agent.

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. The schema has 0% description coverage, only defining 'subject_id' as an integer with a title 'Subject Id'. The description explains that 'subject_id' is 'The Bangumi ID of the anime,' clarifying its purpose and format. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't detail constraints like valid ranges or examples.

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 lite info of seichi junrei (anime pilgrimage) locations for a specific anime using its Bangumi ID.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('lite info of seichi junrei locations'), and scope ('for a specific anime using its Bangumi ID'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_anime_detail_points' or 'search_bangumi', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_anime_detail_points' or 'search_bangumi', nor does it explain prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage. The only implied context is needing a Bangumi ID, but this is basic parameter information rather than usage guidance.

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