search_torrents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes parameters, return format, and the search action, which is inherently read-only. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it mention any potential side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. The transparency is adequate but not exceptional.

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 concise and well-structured with a one-line summary followed by clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundant or missing information. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 has 4 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: the search context (M-Team), parameter details, and return format (listing IDs, names, sizes, etc.). It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly, and the output schema is leveraged by describing the return value.

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, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: keyword supports Chinese/English, mode lists all allowed values (including default), page_number and page_size have defaults and max for page_size. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema types and defaults.

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 'Search torrents on M-Team by keyword', specifying the verb (search), resource (torrents on M-Team), and key parameter (keyword). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like download_torrent (download) and get_torrent_detail (get detail of a single torrent), making it unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage through the name and siblings, but lacks explicit guidance like 'Use for searching; use download_torrent for downloading'. The usage context is inferred, not stated.

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