radarr_get_qualityprofile

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this a safe read operation, and the description's 'Fetch' is consistent with that. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., not-found behavior, auth requirements, rate limits). Since annotation covers the safety profile, a neutral score of 3 is appropriate.

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 one short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no fluff and is easy to parse. The minor grammar error does not affect structure or efficiency.

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, the description is mostly complete. The output schema is present, so return values are defined. The readOnlyHint annotation covers safety. It could be improved by mentioning that the id comes from the list endpoint or that a nonexistent id may result in an error, but given the simplicity, a small gap remains.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by id' but does not explain how to obtain the id, what the id references, or any format expectations. The parameter `id` is only minimally documented by the schema itself. This is insufficient given 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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('quality profile') with a clear scope ('single' by 'id'). It distinguishes from the sibling list tool by emphasizing the singular nature and ID-based retrieval. Minor grammar error does not detract from 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 this tool is for fetching one specific quality profile by ID, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like list, create, update, or delete, nor does it mention any exclusions. The guidance is only implied by the 'by id' phrasing.

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