seerr_get_service_sonarr

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description simply says 'Get' and adds no extra behavioral context such as auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the sonarr_id is invalid. It adds no value 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an existing output schema, so the description need not detail return values. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral context, making it adequate but not fully complete for agent decision-making.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the sonarr_id parameter, but it does not explicitly. The parameter name is self-explanatory, and the phrase 'Sonarr server' implies the ID identifies a server, so the description provides enough implicit context but lacks explicit detail.

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 action ('Get') and the specific resource ('Sonarr server quality profiles and root folders'). It is distinct from sibling tools like seerr_list_service_sonarr or seerr_get_service_sonarr_lookup, though it does not explicitly compare itself to them.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., that a Sonarr server must be configured) or context for when this is the right choice over similar lookup tools.

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