radarr_get_notification

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

The annotation readOnlyHint already indicates a safe read operation, and the description is consistent. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the schema, such as error handling or response format, though an output schema is present.

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 with no redundant information.

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 operation, the description is sufficient when combined with the readOnlyHint and output schema. However, it lacks any guidance on usage context or edge cases, though the tool's simplicity reduces the need.

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 and required. The description's 'by id' clarifies that the id refers to a notification provider, but the schema already provides the type and the tool name makes this obvious. With 0% schema description coverage, the description only minimally compensates.

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 verb 'Fetch' and specifies the resource 'notification providers' with the scope 'by id'. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling listing tool radarr_list_notification, but the grammatical error 'providers' in 'a single notification providers' slightly undermines clarity.

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 a specific notification provider id is known, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus other notification tools like radarr_list_notification or radarr_update_notification. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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