radarr_lookup

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 states that the tool is a search returning candidates with specific fields (title, year, overview, poster URL), which is good. However, it doesn't mention any side effects (though it appears read-only), rate limits, or behavior when no results are found. The description is adequate but not rich enough to fully prepare the agent for all scenarios.

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 at two sentences, with the most critical information (search method, purpose) front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no nested objects, no output schema, no enums), the description is fairly complete. It covers what the tool does, how to use it, and what the user gets back. A small gap is the lack of pagination or result count limits, but for a search tool this is a minor omission.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds very little beyond the schema: it lists the return fields (title, year, overview, poster URL) and confirms the term parameter accepts title or IDs. This adds some context but does not significantly deepen understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb (Search), the resource (Radarr for a movie), and the specific means (by title or TMDB/IMDb id). It distinguishes itself from siblings like sonarr_lookup by explicitly naming Radarr, and from radarr_add by noting that the result is to confirm with the user before adding.

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 explicitly states the use case: 'Use this to confirm with the user before adding.' This clearly distinguishes when to use radarr_lookup (pre-add confirmation) versus radarr_add (actually adding), and implies it's a read-only discovery step. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative sibling tools are named, but the context is so clear for this workflow that a 5 is warranted.

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