qui_get_torznab_all_health

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds no additional context such as response shape, pagination, or potential latency. It simply repeats the HTTP method, which is consistent with the annotation but offers no new insight.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, but it lacks essential information. It is concise but under-specified, leaving the agent to infer the tool's purpose and parameters from the name and endpoint alone.

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?

With no output schema provided, poor purpose clarity, and no parameter documentation, the description is incomplete for a tool that interacts with a health endpoint. It does not mention what 'health' means, what data is returned, or how to interpret results.

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 has 0% parameter coverage, and the description only gives a generic convention (path vars, query in arguments.params, body in arguments.body) without specifying which path/query/body fields this endpoint expects. This does little to help an agent construct correct parameters.

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 says to call a GET endpoint but does not explain what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieves health status for all indexers). It is essentially a restatement of the endpoint, not a clear function description. It fails to distinguish from sibling qui_get_torznab_indexer_health.

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 alternatives (e.g., singular health check, error/stats endpoints). Only describes how to pass arguments generically, not the use case or conditions.

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