find_series_by_quality

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 discloses performance ('first call reads every show's files about 15 seconds'), caching ('cached for 5 minutes'), scope limitations (only Sonarr-downloaded content), and read-only nature. It does not specify permission requirements or pagination/return format details, but covers most behavioral traits.

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 concise and front-loaded: it begins with the core purpose and examples, then explains scope, output summary, performance, and read-only status in a logical flow. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 six optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is quite complete: it covers purpose, usage, performance, caching, scope limits, and output summary. It could mention permission requirements or exact return format, but the key context for correct invocation is present.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds usage examples for parameters (bestAtMost 720, bestAtLeast 1080, mixedOnly as upgrade candidates) and folder narrowing ('kids', 'anime', 'sports'), which reinforce but do not significantly exceed the schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Finds TV shows by the video quality Sonarr downloaded') and immediately contextualizes with example questions. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_plex_library by explicitly noting it only sees Sonarr-downloaded content and routing 4K searches elsewhere.

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 explicit when-to-use examples ('which shows do I only have in 720p?'), explains parameter conditions (bestAtMost 720, bestAtLeast 1080, mixedOnly for upgrade candidates), and names a boundary with search_plex_library for 4K. Alternative and exclusion conditions are clear.

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