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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: searching multiple providers, query construction rules, ranking criteria (quality, efficiency, health, size), and response format (top 3 with reasons). It also specifies handling of poor results. However, it omits details like provider names, auth needs, or potential rate limits.

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 lengthy but well-structured into sections (arguments, query rules, ranking, response). Every sentence adds value, though some repetition exists (e.g., 'top 3 results maximum' could be merged). It is appropriately front-loaded with purpose and argument details.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description need not detail return values, but it does specify response format (top 3 with filename, size, seeds, etc.). It covers arguments, processing logic, and expectations. Missing are error handling and edge cases (e.g., empty results beyond 'poor results' keyword suggestion). Still, it is largely complete for typical use.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate fully. It provides extensive, prescriptive guidance for user_intent and query, including case, formatting, and content rules. For max_items, it contradicts the default of 10 by stating 'top 3 maximum', adding semantic constraint. This adds far more meaning than the raw 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?

The first sentence clearly states the tool performs an advanced torrent search across multiple providers, which is a specific verb-resource pair. The sibling tools (download_torrent_file, get_magnet_link, get_torrent) indicate this is the search entry point, making it distinguishable.

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 provides extensive guidance on how to use the arguments and interpret results (query construction, ranking criteria), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide when-not-to-use scenarios. Usage is implied but lacks direct alternatives comparison.

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