radarr_get_language

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Fetch' is consistent, so no contradiction. The description adds minimal behavior context (e.g., 'single') beyond the annotation but does not disclose anything about response format, error behavior, or required permissions. With annotations covering safety, the description provides adequate but not rich transparency.

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, short sentence that communicates the core purpose without any filler. It is front-loaded and easily parsed, despite the grammatical slip. All content is relevant and necessary.

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 an output schema and a read-only annotation, the description covers the essential action and parameter. It omits explicit mention of return shape or error cases, but the output schema likely covers that. The description is sufficiently complete for this low-complexity tool, though it could be more explicit about the resource context.

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 input schema has one parameter 'id' with 0% description coverage. The description clarifies that the id is the identifier of the language being fetched, adding some semantic meaning. However, since the parameter name is self-explanatory and no further details are provided, the description only marginally compensates for the schema gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('a single language') with an explicit parameter ('by id'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling 'radarr_list_language' by scope (single vs list), though it does not explicitly name the alternative. The minor grammatical error ('languages') doesn't obscure meaning.

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 implies usage when retrieving one language by its ID, which is a clear context. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Since the 'by id' phrasing implies the specific scenario, it earns a 3 for implied guidance.

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