qui_list_recent_torznab_searches

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true covers the read-only nature, and the description's mention of a GET endpoint is consistent but adds no new behavioral context. No additional traits such as rate limits, pagination, or side effects are disclosed, so the description provides minimal 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the endpoint and gives the essential argument-passing convention, earning full marks for conciseness.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered, but the description lacks crucial context: it does not specify which path variables or query parameters are needed for the endpoint, nor does it provide usage guidance relative to siblings. This makes the tool under-specified for correct invocation.

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?

Given the input schema is generic (only an 'arguments' object with additionalProperties), the description's instruction to pass path variables directly, query values in arguments.params, and body in arguments.body adds useful structural meaning. However, it does not enumerate the specific parameters expected for this endpoint, leaving a significant gap in a 0% coverage scenario.

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 a specific endpoint (GET /torznab/search/recent), which clearly implies the tool lists recent Torznab searches. However, it does not explicitly state the action or differentiate it from similar tools like qui_get_torznab_search_history, so it stops short of full sibling distinction.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusionary conditions. It only explains how to structure arguments, not when the tool is the appropriate choice.

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