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 does well by explaining the return format ('Returns grouped providers: Stream (subscription), Free, Rent, Buy'), which is valuable context. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, error conditions, or authentication requirements, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 a distinct purpose: stating the tool's function, providing usage guidelines, and describing the return format. There's no wasted text, and the most critical information (what the tool does) is presented first.

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 tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the purpose, usage guidelines, and return format. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description compensates by describing the return structure. Some additional behavioral context (like error handling) would make it more complete.

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 both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning that content_id comes from 'search_content results' and that country is 'specific,' but doesn't provide additional semantic context or usage examples beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('check where a movie or TV show is available'), the resource ('to stream, rent, or buy'), and provides concrete examples ('Netflix, Disney+, Amazon Prime, etc.'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'search_content' by focusing on provider availability rather than content search.

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 versus alternatives: 'use this tool only for a different country or to get more detail' compared to 'search_content' results. It also specifies prerequisites: 'Requires content_id from search_content results.' This gives clear context for when and why to select this tool.

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