get_series

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a retrieval operation ('Get') and specifies the return contents: seasons, per-season statistics, and monitored flags. It does not mention errors, auth, or side effects, but for a read-only resource lookup the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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?

Single sentence, no filler, and front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every phrase adds information: one series, full object, and the season-level contents.

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 simple single-resource retrieval with a small, fully described schema and no output schema, the description communicates the object scope and the important returned contents. Remaining details like Sonarr id vs TVDB id and the image flag are already in the schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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 schema already documents id and include_season_images with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, so it correctly relies on the schema; the baseline 3 applies.

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 clear verb-resource pair: 'Get the full series object for one series.' It distinguishes itself from list_series by emphasizing single-series scope, and it previews unique content (seasons, per-season statistics, monitored flags) that an agent would expect from this tool versus other get_* tools.

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?

The phrase 'for one series' clearly signals the tool is scoped to a single series rather than a collection, and 'full series object' implies it is appropriate when season-level detail is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or list when-not-to-use cases, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose it over list_series or get_episode.

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