diagnose_missing_episodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares 'Read-only: it changes nothing,' names its data sources (Sonarr's history and download queue), and enumerates the diagnostic categories returned. It stops short of mentioning error behavior or lookup ambiguity handling, but the safety profile and result shape are covered.

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?

A single dense paragraph that is front-loaded with purpose before moving to behavior, safety, scoping, and finally the prerequisite. Every clause contributes, though the diagnostic-cause enumeration makes it longer than strictly needed for selection.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must supply the return semantics and safety profile itself, and it does: it lists the diagnostic verdicts an agent will receive and confirms the call is side-effect free. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results correctly.

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 would be 3, but the description adds parameter-dependent behavior the schema does not: season/episode act as optional narrowing filters, and omitting them changes the result to a whole-show grouping. The year parameter's disambiguation role is already in the schema, so no extra credit there.

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 (explains why aired episodes have no file) and immediately scopes it as the TV counterpart of diagnose_missing_media, which disambiguates it from that sibling. The enumerated causes it reports (never grabbed, grabbed but not imported, failed download, file removed, stuck in queue, unmonitored) make the tool's output unmistakable.

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 explicit routing: 'Use check_series_completeness first to see which episodes are missing,' plus the invocation choices ('Give season (and episode) to look at just those; without them it groups every missing episode of the show'). The alternative and prerequisite are both named, leaving nothing to inference.

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