qui_search_torznab

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention permissions, side effects, response format, rate limits, or whether the operation is safe/read-only. The only behavior described is the mechanics of argument placement, which is not behavioural transparency.

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 that immediately names the endpoint and method, followed by compact argument-routing instructions. There is no redundancy or filler; it earns its place.

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 the tool's complexity (path, query, and body components) and the lack of annotation support, this description is inadequate. An output schema exists but is not enough to guide invocation. Missing details include authentication, required query parameters, search semantics, and expected response handling.

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 provides only a generic 'arguments' object with no property descriptions, so schema coverage is 0%. The description adds useful structural guidance (path variables directly in arguments, query values in arguments.params, request body in arguments.body), but it does not enumerate the actual parameters, their meanings, or required values. An agent still cannot construct a correct request without external API knowledge.

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 and HTTP method, giving a specific resource to call. However, it does not state the domain-level purpose (e.g., searching torznab indexers for releases) and does not distinguish this from sibling tools like qui_search_torznab_cross_seed. It is more of an implementation detail than a semantic purpose statement.

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 such as qui_search_torznab_cross_seed or qui_get_torznab_search_cache. The description only explains where to place path, query, and body values, but not the circumstances that warrant using this tool.

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