find_series_gaps

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 sort order, which per-show fields come back, and the important operational constraint that the returned rows are exactly what the user sees, so narrowing must happen server-side via filters. It omits any statement about permissions or read-only nature, but the read semantics are unambiguous from the wording.

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 purpose and output shape before the query examples and filter rationale. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the interpretation guidance ('Most gaps are in shows that are deliberately not monitored...') is slightly more editorial than needed for tool 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 exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the columns returned and the ordering. Combined with the filter-selection guidance and the sibling handoff, an agent has enough to invoke and interpret this 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 description coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine intent beyond the schema: 'hideEmpty' is framed as dropping shows with nothing downloaded and 'maxMissing' as finding near-complete shows, and it explains why filtering should be done here rather than on the result set. That is meaning the schema alone does not convey.

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 and resource ('Lists the TV shows in Sonarr that are missing aired episodes') plus ordering ('most missing first') and the per-row payload (downloaded count, monitoring state, searching state). It names the sibling check_series_completeness for the single-show case, so an agent can separate it from adjacent tools without opening a 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?

Gives concrete user-intent triggers ('which of my shows have gaps?', 'which shows are only missing a few episodes?') and explicitly routes the 'what is Sonarr still looking for?' case to the monitored='searching' variant, plus points to check_series_completeness for one show. When-to-use and the alternative path are both spelled out.

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