radarr_list_wanted_missing

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates this is a read-only operation. The description adds no behavioral context such as pagination behavior, default sorting, or response structure. It merely repeats parameter names already present in the schema, so it provides no additional transparency beyond the annotation.

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 short but under-specified. The sentence 'Query params: sort_key, sort_direction.' is redundant with the schema and does not earn its place. A concise description should be informative, not merely terse.

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 5-parameter schema with no descriptions, an output schema, and a large set of sibling list tools, this description is severely inadequate. It does not explain what is being listed, how to interpret the parameters, or why this tool differs from similar ones. An agent cannot reliably select or invoke this tool based on this description alone.

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, but it only mentions 'sort_key' and 'sort_direction' without explaining their allowed values or meaning. It completely ignores page, monitored, and page_size, and even the named parameters are left undefined. This fails to add any semantic value.

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 'List missing' is vague and essentially restates the tool name without specifying the resource. It does not clarify that it lists missing movies in Radarr, nor does it distinguish from the sibling tool radarr_list_wanted_cutoff. The verb is present, but the object is ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus other list tools. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives. The reference to query parameters is not usage guidance, leaving the agent without direction on selection.

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