qui_apply_cross_seed_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'POST' and the endpoint, but does not mention side effects, required permissions, or response behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like operation.

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?

A single sentence that conveys the endpoint, the argument structure, and the exact placement of different input types. It is front-loaded with the most critical information and avoids any filler.

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 is too terse given the tool's nature. It omits the functional purpose, what 'apply' means, any expected outcomes, and error conditions. The presence of an output schema does not relieve the description of explaining the operation's intent, making it incomplete for an agent to decide and use confidently.

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 input schema is essentially an empty envelope (additionalProperties only). The description compensates by explaining that path variables, query values, and body must be placed in arguments, arguments.params, and arguments.body, respectively. It even reveals the path variable names via the URL template, but does not enumerate query or body fields, leaving some ambiguity.

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 identifies the tool as a call to a specific POST endpoint, including the HTTP method and path template. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by its unique endpoint resource, though it does not explain the domain-level purpose of 'apply' beyond what the endpoint name implies.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any contextual prerequisites. It simply instructs how to call the endpoint without stating what scenario triggers this operation.

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