qui_get_torznab_search_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that (e.g., pagination, rate limits, authorization requirements), but it also doesn't contradict the annotation. Thus it meets the baseline for annotation-backed descriptions.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It is efficient, but the content is generic boilerplate that could apply to any endpoint, so it lacks substantive value. Still, for what it contains, it is well-structured.

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, the description does not provide domain-specific context: it fails to explain what search history is, what parameters are available, or how this tool relates to siblings. The generic argument-passing note doesn't make the tool usable for an agent without additional external knowledge of the API.

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 object with 0% property documentation. The description explains the convention (path variables in arguments, query values in arguments.params, body in arguments.body), which adds structural meaning, but it doesn't identify the actual valid parameters for this specific endpoint. Thus it only partially 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 names the endpoint GET /torznab/search/history, making clear that the tool fetches Torznab search history. However, it doesn't explain what 'search history' contains or distinguish it from sibling tools like qui_get_torznab_search_cache or qui_list_recent_torznab_searches, so it falls short of a 5.

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 alternatives. The description only explains how to pass arguments (path, query, body) but offers no context about suitable scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools with similar names intensify the ambiguity.

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