radarr_list_alttitle

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description needs less behavioral disclosure. It adds minor context about query parameters (movie_id, movie_metadata_id) but does not explain filtering behavior, pagination, or output format. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that immediately state the action and mention the parameters. Every word earns its place with no redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it omits usage distinctions from sibling tools and does not clarify whether parameters are optional filters. It is complete enough for a basic understanding but lacks important selection 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it merely repeats the parameter names without explaining what they represent or how they affect results. The schema already provides names and types, so this adds no semantic value beyond listing.

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 the tool lists alternative movie titles, providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool radarr_get_alttitle, which likely retrieves a single title, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like radarr_get_alttitle. It only mentions query parameters, which is parameter information, not usage context. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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