qui_get_cross_seed_completion

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

The description adds only the fact that it's a GET request, which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation but adds little else. It does not disclose whether the instanceID must exist, if authentication is required, or what happens on success or failure. With annotations covering only read-only status, the description carries the burden but falls short.

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 delivers the essential calling convention and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the endpoint and avoids fluff, earning a top score for efficiency.

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 minimally viable for a read-only GET endpoint with an output schema, but given the large sibling list and sparse schema, it lacks context about the resource's purpose, prerequisites, or when to choose it. The output schema exists but the description still leaves the agent guessing about the meaning of 'completion'.

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 parameter details beyond the generic 'arguments' container, so the description compensates with important conventions: path variables directly, query values in arguments.params, and body in arguments.body. It also names the instanceID placeholder in the path. However, it does not list query or body fields, so coverage is 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 explicitly names the endpoint GET /cross-seed/completion/{instanceID}, which clearly identifies the resource and operation. It goes slightly beyond a tautology by specifying the HTTP method and path, but it does not explain what 'completion' means or what the result represents, so it's not a full 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative cross-seed tools like qui_get_cross_seed_status or qui_get_cross_seed_local_matches. The description only explains how to call the endpoint, not under what circumstances it should be chosen, making it inadequate for decision-making.

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