dashbrr_get_overseerr_requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the return composition (pendingCount + request list) and a concrete requirement for instance_id formatting. No contradictions exist.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by the parameter requirement. No filler or redundant content.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, return content, and a critical parameter constraint. It is complete enough for an agent to safely select and invoke the tool, though it does not address potential edge cases or response pagination.

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 has zero description coverage (0%), so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by explaining that instance_id must be type-prefixed and providing an example ('overseerr-0'), which is essential for correct invocation.

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 clearly identifies the resource (Overseerr media requests) and scope (pending), and the 'get_' prefix supplies the verb. It distinguishes from the sibling set_overseerr_request_status by focusing on retrieval, though it does not explicitly name an action verb in the description.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'pending' qualifier (use this for pending requests), but no explicit alternatives or when-not scenarios are provided. There is no mention of other tools like the setter for status changes, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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