cleanuparr_get_search_summary

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

The description accurately reflects a read-only operation, consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not add additional behavioral context like rate limits or response details, but given the read-only annotation and the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values.

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 a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without waste.

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 parameterless read-only tool with an output schema, the description is sufficient to convey what the tool does. The phrase 'per-instance summary' hints at the granularity, and the output schema provides detailed return structure. No major gaps.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to add. The schema already covers this fully, earning the baseline 4 for a no-parameter tool.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'Seeker search totals and per-instance summary,' making its function distinct from sibling tools like cleanuparr_get_stats or cleanuparr_get_arr_status. It clearly states what data is returned.

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 description provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over similar summary tools, such as get_stats or get_cf_stats. It only states what it returns, leaving the agent to infer its use case from the name.

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