TorrentClaw-MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it returns specific structured data (director and top 10 cast with character names) and has a prerequisite dependency on search_content. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like what happens if the content_id is invalid or if there are fewer than 10 cast members.

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 perfectly concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides usage guidelines, and the third specifies prerequisites. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand when and how to use this tool.

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?

For a read-only lookup tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what data is returned, when to use it, and dependencies. The main gap is the lack of output format details (structure of returned cast/director data), which would be helpful since there's no output schema.

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 (content_id). The description adds context by explaining that this ID must come from search_content results, which is useful but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema's description field already states ('Numeric content ID from search_content results').

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('director and top 10 cast members for a movie or TV show'), distinguishing it from siblings like search_content (which finds content) or get_watch_providers (which finds where to watch). It explicitly lists the exact data returned: director and cast with character names.

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 ('when the user asks about actors, cast, director, or 'who is in' a title') and includes a prerequisite ('Requires content_id from search_content results'), clearly differentiating it from alternatives like search_content (which finds IDs) or get_popular (which lists trending content).

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