qui_get_cross_seed_search_settings

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as authentication requirements, response structure implications, or side effects. It merely restates the HTTP method and argument passing convention, which does not go beyond the annotation.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the endpoint information and followed by clear instruction on argument placement. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

This is a simple read-only GET tool with readOnlyHint and an output schema available, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks any statement about what the settings represent or when to use this tool, which would help an agent fully understand its role. The invocation details are present, but the semantic context is sparse.

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 is generic (arguments with additionalProperties true) and schema description coverage is 0%. The description explains the argument structure: path variables go directly in arguments, query values in arguments.params, and body in arguments.body. This is helpful for invocation, but it does not specify which path variables, query parameters, or body fields this particular endpoint expects. It provides a general convention rather than concrete parameter semantics.

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 GET request to the /cross-seed/search/settings endpoint, which implies retrieving cross-seed search settings. It is more specific than a vague statement, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like qui_get_cross_seed_settings, leaving some ambiguity about the exact scope of 'search settings.'

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 alternatives. It does not mention that this is the appropriate choice for fetching cross-seed search settings, nor does it exclude other scenarios or name sibling tools. The description focuses solely on invocation mechanics rather than usage context.

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