qui_get_reannounce_candidates

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

The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and the structure of arguments (path, query, body), which partially supplements the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authorization requirements, or rate limits, so behavioral transparency is adequate but not rich.

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, direct sentence that immediately states the endpoint and argument-passing conventions. No wasted words, front-loaded with the key 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?

The description calls out the exact endpoint and argument structure, and an output schema exists (so return values need not be described). However, it omits usage context, prerequisites, and any detail about what query/body parameters are valid, leaving gaps for an agent to infer behavior.

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 'arguments' object with 0% property coverage, so the description's clarification that path variables go directly, query values go in arguments.params, and request body goes in arguments.body adds essential meaning. It does not enumerate specific query or body fields, but compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 states the tool calls qui's GET /instances/{instanceID}/reannounce/candidates endpoint, identifying the resource and operation clearly. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the endpoint URL is specific enough to be unambiguous.

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 or when to prefer an alternative. It only gives the endpoint and argument-passing mechanics, so an agent lacks context on the intended use case or decision boundaries.

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