qui_get_torznab_indexer_stats

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the parameter-passing convention (path/query/body). However, it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as required parameters, potential errors, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The description adds some value beyond annotations but is 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?

The description is a single sentence that immediately states the action and the argument structure. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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 covers the call mechanics but omits specific required inputs (e.g., the indexerID path variable is implied by the URL but not stated). There is an output schema, so return values need not be described, but for an agent to correctly invoke the tool, it should explicitly mention that an indexerID must be supplied and any relevant query parameters.

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 catch-all 'arguments' object with no specific parameters (0% schema coverage). The description compensates by explaining that path variables go directly in arguments, query values in arguments.params, and body in arguments.body. This is helpful but does not enumerate the actual parameters (e.g., indexerID), so some inference is still required.

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 /torznab/indexers/{indexerID}/stats), making it clear this tool retrieves indexer statistics. However, it does not explain what 'stats' includes or explicitly state the outcome, so it is not as transparent as listing the resource and action.

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 the many sibling tools (e.g., qui_get_torznab_indexer_health, qui_get_torznab_indexer_errors). The description only explains how to call the endpoint, not in what context or with what alternatives.

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