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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses important non-obvious traits: codes are single-use, expire after 5 minutes, and authentication is only completed in the browser once the user returns to the webapp. This is strong transparency for an authorization tool.

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 single-sentence purpose statement is front-loaded, followed by a compact workflow explanation. No filler or redundant content; every sentence adds relevant operational detail, though the length is slightly more than minimal.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with a full schema and output schema, the description covers the complete invocation flow: source of the code, required inputs, single-use/expiry constraint, and the required post-call user action. Minor details like error handling for invalid/expired codes are absent but acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining where the code comes from, its exact message format, and that it must be paired with the user's Telegram chat id. This helps an agent correctly extract and pass parameters.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Authorize a browser on the Torrent Search webapp via its pairing code.' This clearly identifies the tool's action and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search, get, and forward, which have different purposes.

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?

It thoroughly explains when to use the tool: when a user sends an 'Authorize <CODE> for Torrent Search' message, with the code and chat id as inputs. It doesn't explicitly list alternative tools to use instead, but no siblings fulfill this same role, so exclusion is not necessary.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get the list', implying a read operation, but gives no detail on side effects, permissions, caching, or failure modes. There is no contradiction, but the disclosure is too thin.

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 wasted words. It is concise, though it is also very sparse – perhaps too sparse to fully convey the tool's role.

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 simple zero-parameter interface and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it omits any context about what a 'torrent source' is, why a user would call this, or how it fits into the workflow (e.g., before searching).

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 tool has zero parameters, so no parameter semantics are needed. Schema description coverage is trivially 100% and the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, which applies here.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the list of available torrent sources'. It clearly indicates a retrieval operation unlike the sibling search, popular, or forward tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 its siblings. It doesn't mention that it could be a prerequisite for search_torrents or that it only lists supported sources. No alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses the REST API dependency, bot-token ownership, required TORRENT_SEARCH_API_KEY and TORRENT_SEARCH_API_URL, the per-chat rate limit of 20/min, and — importantly — that PRUNE_MAGNET_LINKS may rewrite the magnet payload before sending. It omits failure behavior (e.g. what happens when the rate limit is hit) and whether forwards are persisted or deduplicated.

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 action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by tightly packed operational detail (API dependency, pruning, credentials, rate limit). No sentence is filler, though the environment-variable clause is slightly dense and could be trimmed for an agent-facing reader.

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 not be explained, and the description covers the prerequisites, the rate limit, and the payload-mutation behavior an agent must know before calling. It is nearly complete for a 5-parameter side-effecting tool, with only error/retry semantics left unspecified.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including the optional size and seeders fields and the bare-magnet requirement. The description adds only the 'filename + magnet' pairing, which the schema already implies; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Send a torrent (filename + magnet) to the user's Telegram chat' — which immediately tells an agent this is a delivery/forwarding action rather than a lookup. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_torrent, search_torrents, or torrent_webapp, so the boundary is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage context is implied through the mention that the magnet comes 'from get_torrent, or from a search run with INCLUDE_LINKS=true', which routes the agent to the right sibling for input gathering. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not statement (e.g. forwarding vs opening the webapp), so the guidance is indirect.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers a genuinely non-obvious behavioral detail: the magnet is wrapped in an untrusted-data fence, and the fenced value itself is the link while notice/tag lines are not. That directly affects how an agent consumes the result. It stops short of disclosing auth needs, error behavior for missing ids, or 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the essential result-parsing rule. No filler and every sentence 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?

For a one-parameter getter with an output schema present, the description covers purpose and the non-obvious fencing semantics of the return value. It omits what happens when the id does not resolve, which is a minor but real gap for a lookup tool.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents that the id is 'returned by a previous search_torrents or popular_torrents call.' The description repeats only 'by id' and adds no format or validation detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get the magnet link for a specific torrent by id.' That is concrete and distinct from search_torrents and popular_torrents. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate against, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

'by id' and the schema note that the id comes from a previous search_torrents or popular_torrents call imply the use case (you already have an id). There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or comparison against forward_torrent or torrent_webapp, so guidance is only implied.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains that output is grouped per source, limited to per_source results per site, and pre-ranked by swarm health. It also details the expected response format via the 'Response Requirements' section. It does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or failure modes, but for a read-only list tool, the disclosed behavior is fairly comprehensive.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose sentence, a grouping/ranking explanation, and a bulleted list of response requirements. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. The response requirements are useful instructions but add length; still, every sentence serves a purpose. No fluff.

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 one parameter with full schema coverage and an output schema (indicated), the description covers the tool's purpose, output grouping, ranking, and response format. It lists the exact sources and the per_source limit. It does not mention potential edge cases like empty results or error handling, but for a list tool with an output schema, this is adequate.

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 already describes the only parameter `per_source` with full coverage. The description adds value by explaining that per_source controls 'how many top results to keep per source' and ties it to the grouping behavior. This reinforces the parameter's effect on output, going beyond the schema's simple description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the most popular torrents right now across providers with an official top listing.' It clearly differentiates this from search_torrents and get_torrent by emphasizing 'most popular' and 'official top listing.' The mention of specific sources (thepiratebay.org, uindex.org, etc.) further concretizes the scope.

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 implies usage (for fetching popular torrent lists) but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over search_torrents or get_torrent. It mentions 'across providers with an official top listing' as a distinguishing factor, but no explicit 'when-not-to-use' or alternative names are provided. The response requirements give guidance on output formatting but not on tool selection.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the ranking criteria (quality, efficiency, health, size, language) and the response format (top 3-5 results with specific fields and 'Why this?' reasons), plus the fallback of suggesting keywords. This is substantial and goes beyond basic operation.

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 structured with headers and bullet points, making it scannable, but it's fairly long with detailed ranking and response requirements. While each section is informative, it could be more concise; the ranking criteria and response format are somewhat verbose, though they do add context. It's not overly redundant but is longer than strictly necessary.

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 complexity of the tool (multi-provider search, ranking, response formatting) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, query construction, ranking logic, and response requirements, including a fallback for poor results. It doesn't mention auth or limitations, but for a search tool with an output schema, it's sufficiently complete 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?

The schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by detailing how to construct the query (strip generic terms, TV show format, 'multi' flag), which is not in the schema. This enriches the meaning of the query parameter beyond its type/description.

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 states the tool performs an advanced torrent search across multiple providers, which is a specific action and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like popular_torrents or get_torrent beyond calling itself 'advanced' and mentioning 'multiple providers', so it's clear but not fully distinguishing.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It gives detailed ranking and response instructions, but doesn't say when to prefer this over popular_torrents or other siblings, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions. Usage is only implied by the search nature.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the pairing dialog, the buttons, the code expiration (5 minutes), and instructs the agent to call authorize_webapp with the extracted code and chat id. This covers all relevant behaviors and side effects (the tool returns a URL and guides a user interaction). The only minor gap is not explicitly stating that no data is modified, but it's implied by the presentation nature.

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 moderately long but every sentence contributes to the user interaction flow—it explains the URL, the pairing dialog, the actions, the code extraction, and the expiry. It is well-structured, starting with the purpose and then detailing steps. It could be slightly more compact by merging some sentences, but the detail is necessary for this interactive tool.

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 (an interactive pairing process with user involvement), the description is complete. It covers the output (webapp URL), the steps the agent must take, the exact message format, the expiry, and the call to authorize_webapp. An output schema exists (though not shown), so return-value details are presumably covered there. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to correctly invoke and follow through.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly does not need to explain parameters, and it adds no parameter-related details. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description's focus on behavior is appropriate.

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 states the tool's purpose: to present the Torrent Search webapp and its Telegram pairing system, returning the webapp URL and the authorization procedure. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_torrents or authorize_webapp by focusing on the initial presentation and pairing flow, not on searching or authorizing directly.

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 explicit step-by-step usage instructions: tell the user to open the URL, guide them through the QR code/Telegram options, extract the code from their message, and call authorize_webapp. It clearly defines when to use this tool (to initiate pairing) and the follow-up action, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'use search_torrents when searching'—but the flow is self-contained and unambiguous.

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