qui_get_cross_seed_async_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only nature, and the description's mention of GET aligns with that. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond what's in the annotation—no mention of polling behavior, error cases, or what 'async-status' means. No contradiction detected.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the endpoint and immediately explains the argument structure. Every part earns its place, though it could benefit from a brief clarification of required fields.

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?

Given the generic schema and the tool's endpoint complexity, the description provides a useful pattern for constructing arguments but omits specifics like required path variables or query parameters. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the input side remains under-specified for a tool with path and query components.

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 a generic object with no parameter details (0% coverage), so the description's instruction to pass path variables directly in arguments, query values in arguments.params, and body in arguments.body is essential. This compensates well for the schema gap, even though it doesn't enumerate the specific path variables (instanceID, hash).

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 exact endpoint (GET /cross-seed/torrents/{instanceID}/{hash}/async-status) and specifies it's for cross-seed async status. It distinguishes from siblings by naming the unique endpoint, though it lacks a high-level purpose statement beyond the API call.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling status tools (e.g., qui_get_cross_seed_status, qui_get_cross_seed_search_status). It explains how to call the endpoint but not the context or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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