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 key behaviors: the ranking method ('by user click count'), the return format ('paginated list with title, year, type, ratings, and content_id'), and important exclusions ('results do NOT include torrents'). It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but covers the core operational behavior well.

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 efficiently structured with three sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the tool's function, specifying when to use it, and providing important behavioral notes. There's no wasted verbiage, and key information is front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides excellent context: it explains what the tool returns, how results are ranked, pagination behavior, and important limitations. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of default parameter values, though these are in the 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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 trending movies and TV shows'), the resource ('ranked by user click count'), and distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly mentioning what it does NOT include ('results do NOT include torrents') and pointing to an alternative ('search_content'). This provides a complete and differentiated purpose statement.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('when the user asks for recommendations, trending titles, or "what's popular"') and provides clear alternatives ('to get torrents for a title, call search_content with its name'). This gives comprehensive guidance on both appropriate and inappropriate use cases.

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