radarr_get_alttitle

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

The description only states 'Fetch', which aligns with the annotation readOnlyHint: true. No additional behavioral traits are disclosed, such as what happens if the ID doesn't exist or how the result is structured. Given that annotations already cover the read-only nature, the description adds minimal value, but it doesn't contradict anything either.

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 sentence of nine words, with no filler or redundant information. It is fully front-loaded, stating the verb and resource immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 get-by-id tool with one parameter, a readOnlyHint annotation, and an output schema (per context signals), the description is largely sufficient. It conveys the endpoint's purpose without needing to explain return values or safety. The only minor gap is that it doesn't mention the source of the ID or error behavior, but given the low complexity, this is acceptable.

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 only parameter, 'id', is an integer in the schema with no description. The description mentions 'by id', which clarifies that the parameter is an identifier, but it doesn't explicitly state that this is the ID of the alternative title itself. With 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates, leaving the meaning of 'id' mostly inferred from the resource name.

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 a specific verb ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('alternative movie titles'), and a scope ('a single ... by id'). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling 'radarr_list_alttitle' which lists all alternative titles. The grammar is slightly awkward but unambiguous overall.

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 phrase 'by id', suggesting this tool is for retrieving a specific alternative title when its ID is known. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this versus alternatives like 'radarr_list_alttitle', nor any mention of prerequisites or context. The implication is present but not articulated clearly.

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