qui_get_torznab_indexer_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the GET endpoint aligns with that. The description adds no extra behavioral context like authorization or rate limits, but it also doesn't contradict the annotations. Minimal added value beyond the structured data.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff, and the action is front-loaded. Every word earns its place, providing a clear template for the arguments structure.

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?

For a simple health-check endpoint, the description gives the essential endpoint and argument structure, and the output schema covers return values. However, it lacks detail on whether query/body are actually required, and the generic mention could mislead. More specifics would make it complete.

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 essentially a generic 'arguments' container with zero coverage, so the description's explanation of passing path variables, query params, and body is helpful. However, it doesn't enumerate the specific parameters for this endpoint beyond the {indexerID} in the URL, leaving some ambiguity.

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 identifies the HTTP method and endpoint, which clearly states the tool's function: retrieving health data for a specific torznab indexer. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like qui_get_torznab_all_health, relying on the endpoint's {indexerID} to imply specificity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains how to structure arguments, not the context for selecting this endpoint over others such as all-health or stats endpoints.

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