TorrentClaw-MCP

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 key behavioral traits: the tool is read-only (implied by 'Get'), returns up to 8 suggestions with specific fields (id, title, year, content type), and is performance-oriented ('Much faster than a full search'). However, it lacks details on error handling or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage context, the third specifies output, and the fourth highlights performance. No wasted words.

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 output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, output format, and performance. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on return values (e.g., structure of suggestions).

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 the schema already fully documents the single parameter 'query'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no extra context on format or examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with specific verbs ('Get type-ahead search suggestions') and resources ('movies and TV shows'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'search_content' by emphasizing speed and validation/disambiguation. It explicitly names the alternative tool ('search_content') for full searches.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('to validate or disambiguate a title before calling search_content') and when not to use it (implied: for full searches, use 'search_content' instead). It names the alternative tool and explains the trade-off ('Much faster than a full search').

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