Torrent Webapp

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.