radarr_list_history

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates this is a safe read operation, and the description's 'List' is consistent. The description adds some context by specifying 'download/import history' rather than just history, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior or default sorting.

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 sentence with a front-loaded action and a compact parameter list, making it concise and easy to parse. It loses a point for omitting two schema parameters (page, page_size), which could confuse an agent about valid query options.

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?

With 10 parameters, no schema descriptions, and sibling history tools, the description is too minimal to be fully useful. It provides only the basic purpose and a partial parameter list, lacking any guidance on filtering semantics, pagination, or how this endpoint differs from related history endpoints. Although an output schema exists, the description still needs to explain the practical usage 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 schema has 10 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description only lists 8 parameter names without explaining their meaning, format, or valid values. It also omits page and page_size. The listing adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'download/import history,' providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like radarr_list_history_movie or radarr_list_history_since, which are also history-related, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the history-specific siblings or how it relates to other list endpoints. The description merely states the action and lists query parameters, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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