sonarr_lookup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool searches and returns candidates with title, year, overview, and poster URL. It does not disclose if the search can return errors, rate limits, or if it requires authentication beyond the parent service. The behavioral scope is fairly narrow and the description covers the core, but misses some operational details.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core action and return values, then adding usage guidance. Every sentence is concise and earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the search capability, return fields, and a usage tip. It is complete for a lookup tool, though optionally could note that the search returns multiple candidates for ambiguous titles.

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% with a single parameter 'term' already documented as 'Search term: series title, TVDB id, or IMDb id'. The description restates these search modes but adds no deeper semantics (e.g., example format for TVDB IDs, case sensitivity, or partial matching behavior). Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already covers the parameter well.

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 searches for a series by title, TVDB, or IMDb ID and returns candidate information. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings like radarr_lookup (which looks up movies) and sonarr_add (which adds after lookup).

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 advises to use this tool to confirm with the user before adding, which is useful guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like sonarr_search_releases (which searches for releases after a series is selected).

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