radarr_search_releases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of reverting to user interaction when no results are found from the preferred indexer. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, mention any side effects, or describe the response format, leaving gaps in the agent's understanding of the tool's safety and output.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that immediately state the purpose and then provide the key usage rule. No extraneous words, and the critical information is front-loaded. 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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description should ideally explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of release objects). It does not, leaving the agent to guess the return format. The description also does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that movieId comes from radarr_add), though that is implied by the parameter description. Slightly incomplete for a tool with no output schema.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'preferred' indexer behavior (lowest numeric priority) and the fallback to user guidance. This goes beyond the schema's enum description, providing practical usage context. However, it does not explain how to obtain alternative indexer ids (e.g., from list_indexers).

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 action: 'Search available releases for a movie in Radarr.' It specifies the resource (releases) and the system (Radarr), distinguishing it from siblings like sonarr_search_releases. The additional detail about default indexer and fallback behavior further clarifies the tool's 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 explicitly explains when to use the default indexer versus an alternative, including the fallback process ('ask the user which alternative indexer to use and pass its id'). However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like radarr_lookup, radarr_grab, or list_indexers, leaving the broader usage context implicit.

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