qui_search_cross_seed_torrent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the HTTP method (POST) implying a mutation, and shows how to structure arguments, but it doesn't explain side effects, permissions, what actions the search triggers, or response behavior.

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, no filler, and front-loaded with the endpoint. It is appropriately concise for the minimal information it conveys, though the terseness contributes to some gaps.

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?

Given a single generic parameter, no annotations, and an unprovided output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the purpose of the cross-seed search, what inputs are needed beyond generic placement, or what the tool returns, leaving critical context missing.

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 only has a generic 'arguments' object with no properties. The description adds structure by explaining that path variables, query values, and body are passed within arguments, but it doesn't name the specific path variables (instanceID, hash) or required fields. It partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 clearly identifies the action as calling a specific POST endpoint for cross-seed torrent searching, distinguishing it by the exact endpoint path. However, it lacks a domain-level explanation of what cross-seed search does, so it doesn't fully differentiate from sibling tools.

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 the many sibling cross-seed tools, nor any preconditions or alternative tool references. It only provides request construction details, not usage context.

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