search_bangumi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a search operation and returns a JSON string with search results and Bangumi IDs, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description adds value but does not fully compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 states the core purpose, followed by concise sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, 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) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return format adequately. However, it could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like search limitations or prerequisites, especially since no annotations are provided to fill those 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that the 'keyword' parameter is 'The name of the anime to search for,' and specifies it can be in Chinese, Japanese, or English. This clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's basic type definition, though it does not detail format constraints like length or special characters.

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: 'Search for a bangumi (anime) by Chinese/Japanese/English name to get its Bangumi ID.' It specifies the action (search), resource (bangumi/anime), and scope (by name in multiple languages). It also distinguishes from siblings by explaining the ID is 'required for querying seichi junrei locations,' which suggests a different use case than get_anime_detail_points or get_anime_lite_info.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to search for an anime by name to obtain its Bangumi ID, which is needed for subsequent queries. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., when you already have the ID, use get_anime_detail_points). The guidance is implied but not exhaustive.

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