search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the important behavior: this is an asynchronous start-and-poll operation rather than a single blocking lookup. It still omits failure behavior when plugins are missing, whether an unfinished search can be re-polled later, and any result persistence.

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?

Two short sentences with no waste; the operation and its prerequisite are front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the async polling behavior plus plugin prerequisite are covered. The description is adequate for a 5-parameter tool; only edge-case behavior (plugin absent, polling timeout with no settle) is left unaddressed.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The phrase 'poll until it settles' hints at how wait_seconds bounds polling, but the description adds no format or selection guidance beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Run a plugin search') plus a clear lifecycle summary (start, poll, return results). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the torrent-listing siblings by saying 'plugin search', but never names an alternative tool, so an agent still has to infer that this is not a torrent lookup.

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?

States a precondition ('Requires qBittorrent to have search plugins installed'), which is genuinely useful context for deciding whether the call will work. However, it gives no when-to-use guidance relative to siblings such as qbt_call or list_torrents, and no when-not-to-use condition.

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