qui_get_cross_seed_search_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the operation safe, and the description adds that it is a GET endpoint, which is consistent but redundant. No additional behavioral traits are disclosed, such as what the status contains or whether it reflects in-progress searches.

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 one sentence, immediately states the endpoint, and then defines the argument structure. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary information.

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?

It is minimally sufficient for a read-only status endpoint with an output schema, but it is a generic template that does not explain the meaning of the status or any relevant input values. The description would be stronger if it indicated what the status response represents.

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?

With a generic schema at 0% coverage, the description adds a clear convention for where path variables, query values, and request bodies go. However, it does not specify any actual parameters for this endpoint, so the agent still lacks endpoint-specific parameter knowledge.

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 names the exact endpoint 'GET /cross-seed/search/status', which clearly identifies the resource and distinguishes it from sibling status tools. However, it uses the generic verb 'Call' and does not describe what the status means, so it stops short of a fully specific purpose statement.

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 only gives the mechanics of passing arguments (path, params, body) and offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus other status-related siblings. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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