qui_get_torznab_search_cache

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, and the description adds no additional behavioral context such as auth requirements, rate limits, pagination, or side effects. It only repeats that it is a GET request, adding no value beyond the annotation.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the endpoint call and immediately provides the argument-passing convention. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite having an output schema and readOnlyHint, the description lacks a purpose statement and usage context. It does not explain what a torznab search cache is, what parameters are typically needed, or how this tool differs from similar search/history tools. The generic invocation pattern is insufficient for an agent to select and use the tool correctly.

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 no property descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by clearly explaining the internal structure: path variables at the top level, query values in 'arguments.params', and a JSON body in 'arguments.body'. This is essential for correctly constructing the arguments object, though it does not enumerate specific path/query/body fields for this endpoint.

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 merely says 'Call qui's GET /torznab/search/cache/ endpoint,' which restates the tool name and HTTP method without explaining what the tool actually does. It lacks a specific verb like 'retrieve' or 'fetch' and provides no indication of what a 'torznab search cache' is or what the endpoint returns.

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 such as qui_search_torznab or qui_get_torznab_search_history. The description only covers how to pass arguments, not the context or prerequisites for using the tool.

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