qui_list_cross_seed_season_pack_runs

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the read-only nature, and the description adds the GET method (redundant) and the argument-passing pattern. There is no disclosure of pagination, response size, or error behavior, but the annotation mitigates the safety concern, leaving only minor additional value.

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 exactly two sentences with no filler. The first sentence identifies the endpoint; the second explains parameter placement. It is concise, well-structured, and all content is useful.

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 core mechanics (endpoint call, argument mapping) and benefits from the readOnly annotation and an output schema. However, it lacks usage context, detailed parameter names for the endpoint, and behavioral notes, leaving the agent to infer specifics from the API path and conventions.

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?

With schema coverage at 0% and a generic 'arguments' object, the description's instruction to place path variables directly, query values in 'arguments.params', and a body in 'arguments.body' is essential. It gives structure to an otherwise opaque parameter schema, though it does not enumerate specific parameters 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 specifies a precise HTTP endpoint ('GET /cross-seed/season-pack/runs') and links it to the tool name, which clearly indicates listing cross-seed season-pack runs. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'qui_list_cross_seed_runs' by endpoint path, though it lacks a plain-language statement of the result.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives or in which contexts it is appropriate. The description only provides the endpoint and argument-handling instructions, with no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or relationship to sibling tools.

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