qui_list_cross_seed_search_runs

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not mention that this is a read-only listing operation, pagination, or any side effects. The generic argument conventions are not behavioral disclosure. It fails to explain what the tool actually returns or how it behaves.

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, easy to parse and front-loaded with the endpoint. It is concise, though it sacrifices substantive content for brevity. It could be improved by adding purpose in the same length, but it does not waste words.

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 (not shown) and readOnlyHint, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, when to use it, or how it differs from sibling tools. An agent would not be able to decide between this and qui_list_cross_seed_runs without additional context.

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 zero coverage (one generic 'arguments' object). The description explains how to structure arguments (path variables, query params, body) but this is generic across all tools and does not specify what actual path, query, or body parameters this endpoint accepts. It adds some meaning but does not compensate for the complete lack of endpoint-specific parameter details.

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 identifies the exact endpoint (GET /cross-seed/search/runs) but does not explicitly state the tool's purpose (e.g., 'List cross-seed search runs'). The resource is clear from the endpoint name, but the intended action is implied rather than stated. It is not a pure tautology but lacks a specific verb like 'list' or 'retrieve'.

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. It does not distinguish it from similar tools like qui_list_cross_seed_runs or explain any prerequisites or context. The only instructions are about argument structure, which apply universally and do not help with tool selection.

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