radarr_get_qualitydefinition

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description is not required to restate the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as error behavior or missing-id handling. It is consistent with annotations (no contradiction), but offers no extra 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, concise sentence that directly states what the tool does. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and front-loaded with the action verb. The minor grammar issue ('definitions' vs 'definition') does not affect clarity or structure.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one integer parameter, readOnly annotation, and an existing output schema), the description is complete enough. There is no need to explain return values because the output schema exists. The description covers the essential requirement—fetching a single quality definition by id—without leaving significant 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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the only parameter 'id' is minimally described in the schema as an integer. The description's 'by id' clarifies that the id identifies which quality definition to fetch, adding some semantic meaning beyond the schema. However, it is a very simple parameter, and the tool name already conveys this, so the description does not substantially compensate for the low coverage.

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 states 'Fetch a single quality definitions by id' with a specific verb (fetch), resource (quality definition), and scope (by id). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like radarr_list_qualitydefinition, which lists all definitions. The minor grammatical error ('definitions' for 'definition') does not obscure the purpose.

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 use case is implied by 'by id'—you would use this when you need a specific quality definition by its identifier. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., radarr_list_qualitydefinition for listing all) or mention any exclusions. Thus, it offers implied but not explicit usage guidance.

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