check_series_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It richly describes the informational scope of the response (monitoring, quality, queue, download counts), which signals a read-only status lookup, but it never explicitly states read-only/safe behavior or any auth or rate-limit constraints. Strong on what it reports, thinner on safety profile.

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-loads the core identity ('TV counterpart of check_movie_status') before the attribute list, then usage examples, then alternatives. The attribute enumeration is somewhat dense, but each element is informative and no sentence is wasted.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting by enumerating exactly what the tool returns, so an agent knows what to expect. It does not cover error behavior or output format, leaving minor gaps for a status-query tool.

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%, with title and year both documented in the schema (including the same-named-show disambiguation rationale). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource (what Sonarr knows about one show) and enumerates the exact data points returned: monitored state, quality profile, location, next episode air date, last download, queue contents, and downloaded count. It positions itself explicitly as the TV counterpart of check_movie_status, making it easy to tell apart from siblings.

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?

Gives concrete trigger phrases ('is <show> monitored?', 'what quality is <show>?', 'when does <show> come back?') and routes two adjacent questions to explicit alternatives: check_series_completeness for which episodes are missing and diagnose_missing_episodes for why. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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