qbittorrent_search_results

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read; the description adds pagination semantics (limit and offset behavior), which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether the search must be complete, what an invalid id produces, or how to interpret the returned status field. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff; the first sentence defines the return shape, the second explains pagination. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers the result shape and pagination, but it omits the essential prerequisite that id must be a valid search job id (created by qbittorrent_search_start) and does not explain the meaning of the returned status field. Given an output schema exists, return values are partially covered, but the missing context prevents full standalone comprehension.

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 schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description carries the burden. It explains limit (0/negative means no cap) and offset (negative counts from end), but the required id parameter is left undefined—presumably the search job id, but not stated. This partial coverage is helpful but incomplete.

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 identifies the tool as returning results of a search job and lists the exact fields in the result object. This distinguishes it from siblings like qbittorrent_search_status and qbittorrent_search_delete, but it lacks an explicit action verb like 'retrieve' or 'list.'

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?

No guidance is given about when to call this tool versus qbittorrent_search_status or qbittorrent_search_start; there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., starting a search first) or when to use alternatives. The only operational notes are about pagination parameters, not about tool selection.

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