check_series_completeness

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the data source (Sonarr), the return contents (downloaded aired count, missing seasons/episodes, unaired episodes, monitoring status), and a key limitation (doesn't reflect Plex scanning). It stops short of stating read-only nature or any rate/auth behavior, but the query semantics are otherwise clear.

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?

Front-loaded with the question it answers, then the returned contents, then the sibling alternative and the boundary. Dense but every clause earns its place with zero filler.

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 2-param query tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description enumerates what the result includes and clarifies the data source and its Plex blind spot. It does not describe the exact response shape, but the content coverage is sufficient 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (title, year) are already documented in the schema, including the year's disambiguation role. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3 case.

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?

It states a specific verb+resource framed as a question it answers ('do I have every episode of <show>?') and names the exact data source (Sonarr's episode list) and returned contents. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling find_series_gaps. An agent can select it correctly without opening the schema.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use ('for one specific TV show'), names the alternative for the opposite case ('use find_series_gaps to see which shows have gaps'), and adds a boundary exclusion ('does not check what Plex has scanned'). Both the routing rule and the negative scope are stated, not implied.

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